Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBack in the days when Governor George Bush was only able to screw-up Texas instead of an entire nation, 57 lawyers representing men – and a woman – on death row requested commutations so that their clients might receive life instead of death.
When approached by lawyers representing mentally retarded inmates, Bush refused.
When approached by lawyers representing inmates whose court-appointed lawyers had slept during their trials, Bush refused.
When approached by lawyers representing men who had committed the crime in question as juveniles, Bush refused.
In each case, then-Governor Bush felt that the defendants had had full and equal access to the law.
But now along comes Scooter. President Bush deemed his 30-month sentence "excessive" and – just like that – commuted his sentence prior to any judicial review. Libby had the finest legal representation. He never expressed any remorse for lying to a grand jury or for his role in the administration's snow job on the American people that led our nation into a war. Yet Scooter is the lucky soul granted clemency by Bush.
In an article for the once-hyped but now defunct magazine, Talk, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed then-Gov. Bush about Karla Faye Tucker, a woman who had recently been executed after he denied her clemency. Bush's response struck Carlson as "odd and cruel" and he described this exchange:
"I watched [Larry King's] interview with [Karla Faye Tucker]…," Bush said. "He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.
'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'
Odd and cruel, indeed. Carlson provoked a bit of a media storm for revealing Bush's callousness at a time when – unlike now – he was still viewed as Mr. Compassionate Conservative. (The Bush presidential campaign tried to deny that Bush had made this statement but to no avail.) Bush seemed all the more cruel given that appeals for clemency had been made by figures from around the world, including Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, the Huntsville prison warden and correction officers who testified that Tucker was a model prisoner and reformed, a prosecutor of her accomplice, the brother of one of her murder victims, Pope John Paul II and the European Parliament.
Sister Helen Prejean, one of the preeminent fighters against the death penalty and the inspiration for the film Dead Man Walking, wrote, "Callous indifference to human suffering may also set Bush apart. He may be the only government official to mock a condemned person's plea for mercy, then lie about it afterward, claiming humane feelings he never felt." (Prejean was alluding to George Bush's election-year memoir – A Charge to Keep – in which he wrote that Tucker's impending execution "felt like a huge piece of concrete...crushing me.") Preajan described her response when she was told on Larry King of Bush's final press release before Tucker's execution in which he stated, "May God bless Karla Faye Tucker…." Prejean wrote, "Inside my soul I raged at Bush's hypocrisy, but the broadcast was live and global…. [So] I took a quick breath, said a fierce prayer, looked into the camera, and said, ‘It's interesting to see that Governor Bush is now invoking God, asking God to bless Karla Faye Tucker, when he certainly didn't use the power in his own hands to bless her. He just had her killed.'"
The cruelty described by Carlson and Prejean clearly isn't an anomaly. As veteran political journalist Robert Sherrill reported in a special issue of The Nation on the death penalty: "During his presidential campaign reporters asked [Bush] if he was bothered that some indigents on Texas's death row had been represented by lawyers who slept though part of their trials; he responded with a chuckle." The facts around representation for indigent defendants belie Bush's amusement. Sherrill wrote that as of 2001, only three of Texas's 254 counties had public defender programs. In the other counties judges picked the attorneys "who are [often] personal friends, political supporters and contributors, and, most of all, attorneys with a reputation for ‘moving' cases fast…. Texas's county judges have appointed lawyers known to be drunks or drug addicts or both. Some of these court-appointed hacks know absolutely nothing about capital jurisprudence. Several have become famous for sleeping through parts of trials."
And Amy Bach revealed in The Nation, "Studies proved inmates had been put to death in Texas despite representation by disbarred, suspended or incompetent attorney." She wrote of a Texas State Bar survey that found "… 30 percent of judges said they knew colleagues who assigned counsel because they contributed to their judicial election campaigns. Others confessed to picking lawyers they knew would move dockets along and not give vigorous representation." Bach pointed out that this kind of representation "renders the equal protection clause and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel virtually meaningless."
Despite this weak public system, and mounting DNA evidence exonerating convicted death row inmates – including 13 people in Illinois – Bush said in June 2000 that no innocent person had been sent to death row or executed in Texas (he had presided over the execution of more than 135 people at the time; Illinois had executed 12 people since 1977).
But Paddy Lann Burwell, who then-Gov. Bush had appointed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, repudiates Bush's claim when it comes to the case of Gary Graham. Prior to the execution of Graham, the court-appointed lawyer "performed poorly" to say the least. Graham was convicted by a single witness who testified to seeing him through a car windshield some 30 to 40 feet away. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Two witnesses who said that they had seen the killer and it wasn't Graham weren't called to testify. Graham was also 17 at the time of the murder.
"He didn't commit the crime we executed him for," Burwell told the Times.
Since those days when Bush was chuckling at those executed under his watch, the Supreme Court has ruled (for now it was a 5-4 decision) that capital punishment of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people is a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. But that decision came too late for Terry Washington, who Prejean described as "a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old."
After then-Gov. Bush's typical 30-minute meeting with legal counsel – you guessed it – Alberto Gonzales, Bush denied clemency. Washington's mental handicap had never been brought to the attention of the jury that convicted him. Gonzales' memo (obtained by journalist Alan Berlow through the Public Information Act) made no mention of this omission in the trial or the failure by Washington's lawyer to seek the testimony of a mental health expert. The post-conviction lawyers found a history of child abuse, including regular beatings by "whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts." But none of this would lead to Bush deeming Washington's penalty "excessive," and commuting a death sentence to a life sentence.
When all was said and done, Governor Bush had snickered and mocked his way to denying commutations to 57 of the more than 150 people executed under his watch. He then took his moral-certitude-by-any-means-necessary to the White House where one Scooter Libby would help him mislead a nation into a human catastrophe in Iraq and then lie about it.
More than 150 men and women are dead and gone with no second chances. But Scooter, well, one cold night in jail was just too much for his friend the President to bear.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Ms vanden Heuvel, excellent article....
for 1999-2000. Maybe 2004. But now?!??!?
So what? politically that is. What do you want to happen from your writings? Aside from "Bush impeached for being cruel", there's nothing left to DO to this Administration for the next 16 months, so what's the point?
A BETTER question might be asked of our Democratic Presidential nominees...if you want something DONE about capital punishment.
Where DOES Hillary and Obama and Edwards stand on it? Are they going to push for a Review Board? Have a litmus test for judges so that they're anti-capital punishment?
Or is the answer already known? That being, no....because the Democrats have supported and will continue to support the death penalty (Bill Clinton did...made a point of showing that in the 1992 campaign), because aside from the old canard "Dems are weak on defense" is the equally bad "Dems are soft on crime"...and being for the death penalty (except among the liberal base) is a WINNER for them politically.
But, Bush is irrelevant to this discussion...a waste of your time and effort.
or is this just "red meat"?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 12:13pm
She's writing about the hypocrisy of our current President, box of rocks; stop trying to muddy the water.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:17pm
And why are the Dems not officially opposed to the death penalty? Because much of the population is ignorant of the facts--many of which the author pointed out. Slowly and surely the Dems have been dragged to the right by the right wing propaganda that fits nicely into the kind of little sound bites so marketable in a media campaign. Instead of bitching and whining about something that is nothing more than a distraction, why not point that out?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:21pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 12:17pm
I KNOW she's talking about current President, Empty.
My question was....why? To what end? "To show us how Bush is a hypocrite"?....well....duh!
Is she concerned about hammering home a point everybody but the 28%'ers already know...which is useless? Or is she concerned about the death penalty...in which case, Bush is irrelevant to the discussion.
So what's "muddying" about that, Cowboy Trotsky?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 12:29pm
Good observation Mask, KVH like the others at the Nation are doing what ever they can to try and get their liberal base moving, but to no avail. I think they're just constipated.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 12:35pm
"Dems are weak on defense" is the equally bad "Dems are soft on crime"...and being for the death penalty (except among the liberal base) is a WINNER for them politically.
Mask,
This is the "old" way of thinking.
The politics of '08 will re-define what America values in a successful party, and being "tough on defense" will no longer be in vogue.
Being "tough on crime" is unfortunately a racial thing in America, in which the subtext is really about "being tough on black and brown men". If you are proud of that political reality, then you might as well wear a sheet and a white mask, Mask!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 12:47pm
Gee, acook, being such a pro-life person I would think you'd be outraged. I guess you're part of that 28%.
Irrelevant to the discussion? Says you, box of rocks. Like I said, you're here to distract while masquerading as some sort of objective critic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
I think they're just constipated.
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 12:35pm
Trying to shit out the lies and crap we have been fed for 6 years will do that too you.
Bush is a sonofabitch of the highest order, and a liar as well.
If he understood Texas, he would know how I mean that.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
ACook obviously has the same blood lust that afflicts bush.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
I found it odd that the Christian right supported Bush after he had their poster child for Jesus executed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by METTEYYA
It's more than just racial; it is economic. All these men and women without jobs to support themselves and their families leads to more crime. Britain had Australia during the economic upheavel of the Industrial Revolution. The US doesn't have the luxury of shipping it's convicts overseas; that's why our government must incarcerate so many--so many more than any other Western nation.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:54pm
I found it odd that the Christian right supported Bush after he had their poster child for Jesus executed.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
I find it more odd when the "christian wrong" actually act on their beliefs that they profess so stridently.... like Jesus siad not to. They don't give a shit what Jesus said or believed, they just want authority to complete their American Taliban take over of society. Hypocrites all. LUVVY more than most.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 12:59pm
Gee, acook, being such a pro-life person I would think you'd be outraged. I guess you're part of that 28%.
Irrelevant to the discussion? Says you, box of rocks. Like I said, you're here to distract while masquerading as some sort of objective critic.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
No EMPTY, I'm not outraged that killers get what they deserved. People who committ the most henious crimes against the weakest in our society should be put to death.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 1:04pm
Dr.D-The Christian right is quite selective in what teachings they accept and what they ignore.Just like they are selective in what "sins" they emphasize and which they ignore.The reason they blame everything on gays and not adulterers is because most of them aren't gay,but adultery is the favorite past time for many of them.So they emphasize the "sins" they aren't doing and ignore the rest.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 1:05pm
Posted by ACOOK
Mentally retarded? adolescents? those without proper representation? men and women convicted of crimes they didn't commit?
And what happened to the Christian doctrine of forgiveness? Let your god do his own work, hypocrite.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 1:07pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
Empty Spence, explain, in detail, how a discussion of BUSH is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty.
Do you (or Katrina vanden Heuvel) expect him to alter his view of it in the next 16 months? Do you expect a discussion of him and that issue to push his poll numbers lower? Do you expect the Republicans OR Democrats to alter their stance on capital punishment due to a discussion of George W. Bush's failure to commute death sentences?
Or is it just that you want to disagree with me with your standard "Nuh-huh!"...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 1:09pm
I'm not outraged that killers get what they deserved. People who committ the most henious crimes against the weakest in our society should be put to death.
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 1:04pm
even those who were not guilty of anything other than shitty representation at trial? Even children, the mentally handicapped, were do you stop ACOOK?
When will your blood lust be satisfied?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:09pm
Posted by ACOOK
And when was the last time the US executed a wealthy man or woman guilty of a capital crime?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 1:10pm
Why just an injection? Why not crucifiction? Burning at the stake?
C'mon, ACOOK, where does your bloodlust stop?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:11pm
And when was the last time the US executed a wealthy man or woman guilty of a capital crime?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 1:10pm
bwah ha ha ha - rich folks don't do hard time. not in this country. That's just for poor bastards who aren't smart enough to get rich enough to BUY justice.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:12pm
Posted by MASK
Blah, blah, blah--talking out of your punk ass and playing games, as usual.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 1:12pm
People who committ the most henious crimes against the weakest in our society should be put to death.
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 1:04pm
You certainly sound as though you are chomping at the bit to pull the switch yourself.
Why the unreasoning blood lust, ACOOK?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:13pm
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord - unless you are a Repug trying to look tough to win an election. In that case, kill away. Don;'t even bother reviewing the facts of the case.
KILL KILL GRR GRR KILL KILL
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:14pm
Bush can sneer all he wants, but he'll receive no mercy from his God. Bush will be in for a rude awakening when he exits this life. Having to hear the screams and cries of all the Iraqis he has helped murder and the innocent people on death row he let be killed would be but only a good beginning to his everlasting punishment.
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/10/2007 @ 1:16pm
It's more than just racial; it is economic. All these men and women without jobs to support themselves and their families leads to more crime. Britain had Australia during the economic upheavel of the Industrial Revolution. The US doesn't have the luxury of shipping it's convicts overseas; that's why our government must incarcerate so many--so many more than any other Western nation.
Bullshit!
Over half of those incarcerated are for "non-violent" drug-related offenses, and most of those are "victimless" crimes.
From my experience tutoring inmates to read, it is clear that a failed education system in poor (black and brown) communities is the "chief" cause of un-employability. Instead of pouring more resources into the schools in these communities or busing the kids to more affluent white schools, these communities are now having their resources taken away in a "competition scheme" with other schools, and busing is being gutted by Bush's Supreme Court!
This is definitely about race, and what we are doing in inner city schools would be unthinkable if these schools were dominated by white students. And certainly being tough of white crimes would be unimaginable if it was thought that our schools were failing to educate white children!
Don't believe the hype, and volunteer in prison so you can see this racial madness for yourself!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 1:21pm
And what about all of the DNA evidence showing that a significant number of death row inmates, particularly black and brown ones, did NOT commit the crime?
Are you in favor of executing innocent black and brown men because they couldn't afford to hire Johnny Cochran?
Educate yourself on this by going to www.innocenceproject.org
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 1:24pm
Aparently ACOOK is. After all, to quote that eminent legal "scholar" Antonin "Vafanculo" Scalia, just because someone is innocent doesn't mean we shouldn't kill them if they have a "trial" first.
Mere factual innonence doesn't mean SHIT to the blood hungry vengeance crowd, huh ACOOK?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:27pm
Unfortunately, it looks like an extremely important and complicated issue has been pretty handily distorted. There are a lot of questions that go into the question of whether the death penalty is justified, and I just don't think they get (forgive the pun) a fair hearing.
As much as ACook's analysis has been described as bloodlust, I have a couple of questions. If the death penalty actually does deter crime to a meaningful extent, where is the compassion for all the victims who would otherwise exist were the death penalty not in force? Is it completely merciful to lock someone up for the rest of their life rather than execute them? If not, should we simply empty the prison cells rather than sentence people to death?
Also, to an extent, Ms. Vanden Heuvel is right. For some reason, issues in representation, particularly in capital cases, don't get the kind of attention that they should, and that's horrible.
The Tucker case also brings up an interesting question. Does retribution have any legitimate role to play in the criminal justice system? We seem to have an intuitive notion that it does, not only in the sense that people shouldn't be let off for a horrible crime, but also in the sense (as Ms. Vanden Heuvel herself alludes to) that people shouldn't be punished more than they deserve. How much should one's desert (insofar as it can be determined) affect sentencing or penalties?
I feel like these kinds of questions just don't get the consideration they deserve. There are a number of legitimate concerns with which both sides approach this issue, and they deserve a more honest and deep discourse than seems to currently exist on this thread.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2007 @ 1:28pm
"ACook obviously has the same blood lust that afflicts bush."
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
Really? Have you ever had a loved one taken from you? I have. I lost one of my brothers to couple of repeat offenders in 1974. One of them already had a murder conviction under his belt when the lovely Michigan parole board decided that they were "model" inmates and were "reformed" enough to go back into society again. Those two men robbed and beat my brother to death for the few dollars he had in his pocket. My brother was a young husband and father who left behind a young wife and the mother of his three beautiful little girls.
BTW Doc, it was 16 mos later before one of them got caught in Indiana for, what else?...murder, were he's serving a life sentence. They other one died from a heroin overdose. To this day my mother has never received so much as an apology from this guy or his family.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 1:30pm
Aparently ACOOK is. After all, to quote that eminent legal "scholar" Antonin "Vafanculo" Scalia, just because someone is innocent doesn't mean we shouldn't kill them if they have a "trial" first.
Mere factual innonence doesn't mean SHIT to the blood hungry vengeance crowd, huh ACOOK?
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 1:27pm
This is a humongous strawman. Scalia's argument isn't "eh, who cares, there was a judge or something." His argument is (shockingly) that the Supreme Court is almost never in a position (practically or philosophically) to determine whether the trial court's ruling was right. They can (and should) absolutely say "listen, you didn't provide X and Y rights that the Constitution requires, so the trial outcome was invalid." What they should not say is "you found this person guilty, we think he's innocent." They're in no position to do that, nor should they.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2007 @ 1:32pm
I've always found it more than a little ironic that those would would sing the loudest about the Lord's omnipotence
would think that he needed help killing people.
Posted by drhammer at 07/10/2007 @ 1:34pm
ACook-It's sad that you lost someone,but that doesn't make your view more valid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 1:21pm
Let's also consider for a moment the dynamic created by privately-operated (for-profit) prisons.
Posted by drhammer at 07/10/2007 @ 1:36pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 1:30pm
My heart goes out to you and your family.
Posted by drhammer at 07/10/2007 @ 1:44pm
Dr H,
I think that the "war on drugs" which is neither a war and is certainly not about reducing illegal drug availability...should be enough of a transfer of taxpayer money into that lobby to keep them happy for a while don't you?
Posted by freedomplease at 07/10/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 1:30pm
Yes, I have. An uncle was a Houston cop until he was shot in the head.
Better ten guilty men go free then one innocent man die due to poor representation.
Paraphrasing poorly, I'm sure.
And while I am sorry for your loss, understand that both my brother and sister have been shot. Neither died, but I am not unfamiliar with violence.
And while I do favor the death penalty, that is with the caveat that there must be a proper finding. Not the kangaroo court bullshit bush was so fond of.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 1:55pm
One of them already had a murder conviction under his belt when the lovely Michigan parole board decided that they were "model" inmates and were "reformed" enough to go back into society again.
ACook,
I am truly sorry about your family, but have you ever tried to get a job with a prison record?
And if no one wants to hire you because you went to prison, how do you feed, clothe and house yourself?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 2:00pm
If a murder conviction included an automatic death penalty then many killers would never be convicted.Many jurors tend to be overly careful when it comes to deciding to give a person the death penalty, as they should be.One of the biggest problems is the parole system that releases violent criminals.The law should be that these types either never get out or are paroled to halfway houses that are in the same neighborhood that parole board members live in.Maybe even next door to the parole board members house.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 1:55pm
I do agree with you in part that the death penatly should be administered fairly, it just too late for my brother and so many others.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 2:15pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 1:12pm
LOL!...I'll take that for a "Nuh-huh!"
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 2:16pm
My question was....why? To what end?
The article seems to plainly reveal as lies the claims made in Bush's current justification of his commutation of Mr Libby's jail sentence.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/10/2007 @ 2:25pm
I do agree with you in part that the death penatly should be administered fairly, .
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 2:15pm
In part. hhmmm... so then there are times when even if administered UNFAIRLY you wouldn't complain. Would that be more "situational ethics" I hear so much about?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 2:25pm
The vile creature in the Oval Office is a sociopath, pure and simple, incapable of empathy. Further, his self-loathing has compelled him to callously eliminate his fellow sociopaths at every opportunity. One can easily picture him cracking fratboy jokes and aping the executed S. Hussein, complete with rolled-back eyes and lolling tongue. The Libby commutation-cum-pardon is simply a cowardly act of self-preservation: like dead men, freed men also tell no tales.
Posted by jhm5th at 07/10/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by JHM5TH 07/10/2007 @ 2:29pm
BANG! Bullseye!
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 2:31pm
Hell, look at what Babs Bush said about the Katrina survivors....
Compassionate Conservatism my ass.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 2:33pm
By virtually any measure the death penalty is deeply flawed, callous, inhumane and ineffective as a means of crime deterrence. It stands as one of the greatest contemporary monuments to the medieval mindset that lives on in our reptilian lower brains.
It is telling about our American society that Dubya was portrayed as "a regular guy" in the 2000 campaign and Al Gore was "wooden", out of touch, and smeared for having "invented the internet".
I was not aware of the Talk interview at the time, but it provided a snapshot of George the Lesser that should have been widely circulated in a sane society. A snapshot that could have redeemed countless thousands of wasted lives and spared us of the spreading stain of a historically disastrous presidency.
Thanks, Katrina for a powerful post.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2007 @ 2:42pm
A snapshot that could have redeemed countless thousands of wasted lives and spared us of the spreading stain of a historically disastrous presidency. ----Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/10/2007 @ 2:42pm
I'll try you, B_KOOL (since Empty Spence had nothing)...
so this is a "could have" piece? A "What if" article from Ms vanden Heuvel about Bush and the death penalty. And it's effect on stopping Bush from being elected in 2000 a...
hypothetical?!?!?
Otherwise, I see no point in re-hashing Bush's record in Texas.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 2:53pm
MASK, RE ALL YOUR POSTS...
Concerning your point about the futility (or inutility, at any rate) of documenting Bush's behavior the may KVH does in her current blog --
Bush is clearly not just incompetent but pathologically dysfunctional. It is important to stress this pathology, I think, because a lot of people (in fact, the great majority) who recognize the incompetence (and even that took a while), still do not recognize the pathology. If it were just a matter of "waiting out" (as you suggest) the incompetence, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, that pathology makes George W. Bush an extremely dangerous individual. Armed and dangerous. Armed with the most powerful military force on earth and definitely a danger to us all. I hope we CAN wait out the pathology along with the incompetence. But I am very afraid and getting more so by the moment.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/10/2007 @ 2:55pm
Otherwise, I see no point in re-hashing Bush's record in Texas.
Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 2:53pm
Willful blindness. We need to expose this man for the fraud that he is. His "legacy" will be a constant unravelling of his lies and bullshit. The truth will out.
No more bushes. Never again. Their name should stand for fuckup.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 2:59pm
LOL!...I'll take that for a "Nuh-huh!"
Posted by MASK
Take it however you want it, queef.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:02pm
Posted by METTEYYA
There are also a lot of poor white people in prison.
The huge inmate population of the US is a direct reflection on economic policies. The job market for average Joes does not provide enough well paying positions; what else do you do with all the excess people? It's always about money.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
"From my experience tutoring inmates to read, it is clear that a failed education system in poor (black and brown) communities is the "chief" cause of un-employability."
Actually, our chief problem in the black and brown community is profound ignorance and apathy. Our standard of living won't improve until we stop blaming everyone else for our dysfunction.
"Instead of pouring more resources into the schools in these communities or busing the kids to more affluent white schools, these communities are now having their resources taken away in a "competition scheme" with other schools, and busing is being gutted by Bush's Supreme Court!"
Bussing or the lack thereof is not the most serious problem we have in the black and brown communities. It's having a zero property tax base that's killing our community schools. How can we repair or restore our failing school system if middle and upperclass colored folk keep moving to suburbia?
"This is definitely about race, and what we are doing in inner city schools would be unthinkable if these schools were dominated by white students. And certainly being tough of white crimes would be unimaginable if it was thought that our schools were failing to educate white children!"
This isn't about race so much, it's about money and power. Neither of which we use very wisely. We have become our own worst enemy.
"Don't believe the hype, and volunteer in prison so you can see this racial madness for yourself!"
No, don't you believe everything you hear from those cons either. Afterall, they are in prison because they chose not to follow the rule of law.
WE ARE NOT A MONOLITHIC PEOPLE.
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 1:21pm
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 3:14pm
Scooter broke the law! Where is Scooter? Is he in prison? Why not?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:17pm
Thanks BLUESPARK @2:25pm. The point of Katrina's post was Mr. Bush's concern for Libby as a human being can hardly be the real reason why he let him off the hook.
The death penalty carried out is a barbaric practice. Since it does not deter crime, no-possibility-of-parole is adhered to, not to mention that the sentence is far more expensive for the state than merely housing the individual for life, we must assume that we kill people for revenge? Or do we just like to kill people. There are no other justifications for it.
Although a Democrat, I never voted for Clinton - not after he left his campaign for president to sign off, as governor, on the death of Ricky Ray Roberts who was so mentally retarded he asked his jailer to save his dessert for the next night's dinner because he was too full. He had been told repeatedly that he was to die the next morning.
Posted by felicity at 07/10/2007 @ 3:20pm
ACook-It's sad that you lost someone,but that doesn't make your view more valid.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/10/2007 @ 1:34pm
NOBODY,
You should regret the above statement on so many levels and on just about any controversial issue! This is MUCH, MUCH worse than the often-heard, "If you haven't served (in the armed forces), your view ain't worse CRAB!"
I'm thankful to date, no one I personally know have ever suffered as ACOOK (who has my utmost condolences)!
Taking your approach literally, those of us that have created jobs and employed people before, have no more "valid" views on job creation or employment issues than anybody else!
Posted by Happy at 07/10/2007 @ 3:21pm
Posted by HAPPY
Justice is not about emotion, revenge, personal loss. It should be cold, detached, professional.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:23pm
Happy-I've had two very close friends who were murdered,but that doesn't make my views on the subject more valid because knowing a crime victim doesn't give one any special knowledge of the subject.The fact that you may have created some jobs would not make your views more valid.I had a reasonably successful small business where I had a few employees,but I'm hardly an expert on the subject and know people who have never had a business who know more about the subject than I do.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 3:32pm
Posted by HAPPY 07/10/2007 @ 3:21pm
Bullshit. Go back to pimping houses, realtor boy.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:34pm
"The death penalty carried out is a barbaric practice. Since it does not deter crime, no-possibility-of-parole is adhered to, not to mention that the sentence is far more expensive for the state than merely housing the individual for life, we must assume that we kill people for revenge? Or do we just like to kill people. There are no other justifications for it."
Posted by FELICITY 07/10/2007 @ 3:20pm
Felicity, have you or any of your loved ones ever been a victim of a violent crime? Why is a convicted felon's life worth more than the lives of those who have been taken?
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
RioBravo-Do you still believe it's okay to murder law enforcement officers who come to your door as you stated on another board?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 3:38pm
ACook-Many people who have had family members murdered are anti death penalty.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 3:40pm
convicted felon's life worth more than the lives of those who have been taken?
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
Obviously not one of those "all life is precious" absolutists.....
Or is it only precious if you know the victim? Or want to force a woman to carry to term because all life is precious?
Well?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:41pm
Intresting all this was done in a DEMONCRAT stronghold of Illinois and Chicago!
Posted by RIO BRAVO
Maybe that's because that's one of the few places making a geniune effort to uncover the truth.
The system is supposed to let guilty men go rather than convict innocent people.
What I despise most about death penalty opponents is the unspoken assumption their objections suggest about our justice system which is that the murder's victims somehow deserved being killed and have NO VALUE!
Are you on some sort of mind altering prescription? Are you that confused, misguided, rio bozo?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:41pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
Didn't Koresh shoot you in the head? Is that whats behind your incoherent rants?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:41pm
RioBravo-You clearly stated on another board that it was okay for Koresh and his bunch to murder the officers who came to their door.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 3:44pm
Bush was so disgusting and repugnant as govenor of Texas, and he is so much more disgusting and repugnant as president. If he is not impeached, convicted and removed from office, then I hope that he is tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity once his nightmare term in office is over.
Posted by RPerry at 07/10/2007 @ 3:44pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/10/2007 @ 2:55pm
So it's an "impeachment thing"? Otherwise, who cares if Bush is "painted as a pathological"? And does fomenting an IMAGE of Bush as "cruel" help promote impeachment???
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 3:44pm
Felicity, have you or any of your loved ones ever been a victim of a violent crime? Why is a convicted felon's life worth more than the lives of those who have been taken?
It's not, and I don't think Felicity is saying that it is. A person can rationally believe the following two statements simultaneously:
(1) A murderer is not worth more than his victim. (2) Capital punishment is an immoral and unjustified social policy.
What's that soft, rustling sound? Oh, that's just your straw man twisting in the wind.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/10/2007 @ 3:46pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 2:59pm
Okay, it's a "legacy thing". Okay.
I seriously doubt that painting George W. Bush as "cruel" is going to hurt Jeb Bush's chances at 2012 anymore than it would HELP. Jeb isn't likely to recover his family's image in the next TWELVE years.
So all it does is pile a TINY bit of crap on the crap-heap that is Bush's legacy...but I think compared to Iraq, the deficit, etc. that Bush's record IN TEXAS on the death penalty is small potatoes.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 3:47pm
Do you think it permissable to fashion your questions around blatant lies? Your inference above suggests it is!
What "lies" do you refer to?
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/10/2007 @ 3:48pm
Posted by RPERRY
He probably won't be taking any trips abroad once he's out of office. Some country might snatch his sorry ass up like Spain did with Pinochet.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 3:48pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 3:02pm
Empty, your idiocy is self-evident. Doc Decibels and BEAR atleast TRIED to answer the question as to the actual relevance of a discussion of George W. Bush's attitude towards capital punishment...and what impact it has.
You can't. Maybe you could try some more homophobic putdowns and then explain how you're not homophobia. Atleast your hypocrisy is more interesting than your inanity.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 3:49pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/10/2007 @ 3:45pm
You'll swallow ANY bullshit, with or without relish.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:49pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/10/2007 @ 3:49pm
You're pretty good at SPEWING bullshit, too.
Shouldn't you burned to death in Waco to satisfy your false prophet?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:51pm
RioBravo-Your claim that cops can only defend themselves against someone who was convicted of a crime is silly.If you shoot at cops they get upset and it is illegal.These people you defend murdered their own children.Get some morals.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 3:51pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/10/2007 @ 3:49pm
You know, RIO might have an OUNCE of credibility on Koresh....
if he EVER cared about civilian casualties ELSEWHERE!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 3:51pm
Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 3:49pm
It is entirely revealing as regards his character. Someone with the power of life and death over others, who fancies himself a Christian, sneering at someone pleading for their lives?
Expose everything about that sordid little excuse for a man. Leave no stone unturned.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:52pm
Okay, it's a "legacy thing". Okay.
Or perhaps it's something more. Impeachment will not succeed if the public is not behind it, so we need more and more truthful reminders of just the sort of person our President is. If Bush is just an amiable dope, perhaps many of us can live with his bungling; but if he is a cruel, viscious bastard, many our patience with him will evaporate. Half of the battle in an impeachment process occurs in the media. KVH is just doing her part as a good American.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/10/2007 @ 3:53pm
blatant exaduration RIO KORESH
Hey numbnuts, learn how to spell.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 3:58pm
You can't. Maybe you could try some more homophobic putdowns and then explain how you're not homophobia. Atleast your hypocrisy is more interesting than your inanity.
Posted by MASK
I'm not wasting my time playing your little pud games. Grow a pair and just admit you're a partisan hack, instead of this pusillanimous little act of yours.
And there you go again with the effort to label me homophobic. Why am I homophobic? Because bitch boy says I am. Was it Hitler or Goebbels that said something like, "Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it"?
It's not what you say that counts; it's what you do. You're one of those that operate on the opposite, though. A liar, cheat, coward--you name it, anything and everything that decent people consider reprehensible.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 4:00pm
RioBravo-You haven't provided any facts that show that no innocent person has ever been executed.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2007 @ 4:00pm
But what else can you expect from the tin foil hat crowd!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/10/2007 @ 3:59pm
You.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:09pm
although bush himself is a dim-witted silver spoon inthe mouth frat boy who has been surrounded lifelong by wickedly clever handlers (oh boy - i'd love to get a hold of some of the papers he wrote in college...at least the rough drafts he may have scratched out before the handlers stepped in...assuming the existance of such a process), he is indeed wickedly callous and ignorant/uncaring of those less fortunate. he displays the attitude typical of those who understand not true suffering, for such issues are the responsibility of his "people", those handlers and operatives who have done their darndest to make him look like something other than what he is ("average intelligence" and "competant", as well as "compassionate", to name a few).
but W's dim, simplistic, frat boy wickedness shines through the veil of the forbidden city of buffering probagandists and handlers from time to time, just like this!
good angle of attack, kvh! regardless of what we do in terms of prison reform, this enlightening limpse into the grown up man-child's true thoughts is exactly what the peeps need to hear.
proclaim the (ugly) truth on the mountain! let the wicked scrreech, for the masses of once befuddled schmuks have awakened and want to hear more...
give 'em all they want.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 4:14pm
"It's not, and I don't think Felicity is saying that it is. A person can rationally believe the following two statements simultaneously:"
(1) A murderer is not worth more than his victim. (2) Capital punishment is an immoral and unjustified social policy.
What's that soft, rustling sound? Oh, that's just your straw man twisting in the wind.
Posted by BLUESPARK 07/10/2007 @ 3:46pm
Somehow I wish my brother's killer had such a "rationale". To him, Jonathan was a worthless nobody who didn't deserve to be spare his version of the death penalty.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 4:21pm
Is it completely merciful to lock someone up for the rest of their life rather than execute them? If not, should we simply empty the prison cells rather than sentence people to death?
a complete non sequitur. the second sentence has NOTHING to do with the first. you are slipping Thrawn. you used to present cogent arguments. this is not one of them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 4:22pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 4:21pm |
So then it's all about revenge for you?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:22pm
When my brother was shot was AFTER he had given up all the money in the register.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:23pm
If the death penalty actually does deter crime to a meaningful extent,
this has by no means been established. in fact it's not even true.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 4:23pm
Expose everything about that sordid little excuse for a man. Leave no stone unturned.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 3:52pm
Okay....then what? He drops down to 25% approval from 28%? He loses his shot at that Nobel Peace Prize? No "Nixonian recovery" in the 2020s?
Sorry, Doc....again and again. What's the point of this article? Bush is irrelevant, can't run for anything, and Democrats aren't running on a "No more capital punishment" plank in 2008...so...
so what?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 4:31pm
DR, you have put your finger on it. it is ALL about revenge. in our system of justice however we do not let the victim judge the criminal. the death penalty is an anachronism, an atavism harking back to a more brutal time. take a look at the countries that practice the death penalty. do we really want to remain in that number?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 4:32pm
And there you go again with the effort to label me homophobic. Why am I homophobic? Because bitch boy says I am. ---Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 4:00pm
I'll let you speak for yourself...with help from a sympathetic lady who likes to use the same terms YOU do-
"And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am
"I don't know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore - total fag."---Ann Coulter
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot", so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."---Ann Coulter--Speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, DC, March 2, 2007
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 4:33pm
in general, the cold cock, or bottle/pool stick to the head, or the smiling cold cock or groin smash is not a good way to fight. it IS effective, though.
the right wing noise machine has perfected these tactics in recent years. they have bullied and beaten, lied and slandered, both good and wicked for years. the decent have suffered especially as a result of their very decency, at which the most deprave of the wicked snicker most deliciously. nothing quite so self satisfying as to take advantage of one's opponants' decency to destroy them.
and when you can just go to church, screech "i luvvv jeeeesus" and still go to heaven...no wonder nihilism and fundamentalist medeivalism go together like peas and carrots!
the hilarious part is that now that the wicked are revealed for what they truly are...the decent hold the opportunity to do exactly what thier former tormenters did to them, with one very important difference...
whereas the wicked must lie, obfuscate, misrepresent, and slander in order to destroy the decent, the decent need only...
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WICKED.
let not your decency stay your hand when driving the dagger into their guts. lies destroy the decent - truth destroys the wicked.
and if your decency and compassion stays your hand at the crucial moment...
hand the dagger off to an oppositional defiant moral sociopath like me and look the other way...i'll twist it for good measure to boot.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 4:33pm
so what?
Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 4:31pm
It's all about the truth, mask. I should hope you would know that. We won't be rude and start a "counter-bush" library across the street from his grandoise monument to vanity, but we will ferret out the mis-deeds and make them known so no pencil neck wannabe cowboy cocksucker EVER tries that shit again.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:36pm
hand the dagger off to an oppositional defiant moral sociopath like me and look the other way...i'll twist it for good measure to boot Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/10/2007 @ 4:33pm
Salt the blade first.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:37pm
Cook has changed the argument. according to her anecdote, her brother was killed by someone out on parole. this has nothing to do with the death penalty. it is a completely separate argument.the alternative to the death penalty is not parole but prison without the possibility of parole.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 4:37pm
it is this switcheroo that leads me to doubt the veracity of her story. in any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 4:38pm
Sorry, Doc....again and again. What's the point of this article? Bush is irrelevant, can't run for anything, and Democrats aren't running on a "No more capital punishment" plank in 2008...so...
so what?
Posted by MASK
Who the hell are you to tell The Nation anything? You're nobody, nothing. You don't like the content? Then get a job with the journal and do something about it. Otherwise, shut your little bitch mouth.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 4:40pm
ow...now boys...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
Can anybody verify that box of rocks is a male? I have my doubts.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 4:46pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 4:46pm
You look.... I don't wanna!
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:49pm
Just check for an adams apple. (If he really is a male it is obviously far too small to see with an unaided eye.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 4:52pm
ooohh, ok
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 3:14pm
On a per capita basis, blacks and browns far outnumber whites in prison, especially death row inmates.
As for the tax base issue, why should local schools depend on "local" property taxes? Why is this not a statewide or even national concern? It certainly has national consequences!
Forced racial segregation of middle class blacks and browns is not the answer; spending the money required to fix the schools is what we should be doing.
You also really should examine this "choice" issue with respect to breaking the law. I have met many prisoners who have rehabilitated themselves in prison and learned a marketable trade, but when they are released they encounter "extreme" discrimination because of their prison record and as a consequence are unable to find work.
You can only go so long without food and shelter before resorting to crime again, so we do need to look at ourselves as "part of" the problem because employment discrimination against former inmates is REAL!
For every inmate that we turn away because of their record, "we" are creating a new victim of crime.
Think about it.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 5:00pm
The other is far too small, that is.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by METTEYYA
Honey, I did almost five years. I know about prison. I wasn't just visiting. And, yes, I appreciate the all out of proportion racial make up of the incarcerated class; it reminded me of the navy to a certain extent. I'm not arguing that blacks and Hispanics far out number whites; what I'm saying is that it's an economic issue, and the current policies aggravate the already present disparities.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 5:04pm
Dare we count how many of the 13 were actually GUILTY and deserving of the death penalty, but were set free on technicalities?
Rio,
Go to the Innocence Project [innocenceproject.org] and educate yourself on this; it is not 3 or 13, it is 200 wrongfully convicted (and counting) that have been exonerated based on DNA evicence!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 5:05pm
lol - mask is a good guy...he's an oppositional defiant (psuedo)objectivist imp...but thats ok. (as hard as it is to believe sometimes he's a good guy...shhh).
but don't let that stop you from dookin' it out with him. you bring him great pleasure. and blow off some steam...
MASK's ability to nitpick, obfuscate, and enfuriate (esp. those on whose overall side he finds himself) is staggering and whether i agree or not, i gotta respect such...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 5:07pm
"Cook has changed the argument. according to her anecdote, her brother was killed by someone out on parole. this has nothing to do with the death penalty. it is a completely separate argument.the alternative to the death penalty is not parole but prison without the possibility of parole."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/10/2007 @ 4:37pm
JR, my opinion has everything to do with the death penalty. The state of Michigan abolished the death penalty after the Supreme Court decision and as a result my brother and another man in the state of Indiana lost their lives to a violent parolee.
When the Michigan State Pardons and Parole board heard that Johnathan died at the hands of one of their parolees, the board was too ashamed to look my parents in the face. Lil Johnny (as we called him) died in the Spring of '74 and it was around Christmas before my folks received a cold typed letter from the parole board expressing their regrets. No condolences, just regrets. Helluva gift, don't you think?
That day I'll never forget. I've never seen my mother cry like that before, not even at the funeral.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 5:05pm
were all those 200 death row? If so, that is horrendous and shameful. Otherwise, mostly shameful.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 5:13pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 5:12pm
those must have been dark days for your family and you indeed.
but hard to say what might have been, and unless your brother's murder was incarcerated for murdeder, prior to his parole, the relationship of your personal tragedy to the issue of "the death penalty" may be tenuous at best.
not meaning to minimze your loss, your family's tragedy. if someone had done something like that to one of my beloved, i would not trust myself to be in a room alone with them...but then we do have a system, which although it does not always work right, is better than the alternative (me alone in the room with the killer/raper of someone i hold dear).
sorry about the pontificating, ACOOK, but i find the death penalty sketchy at best, terrifying when wielded by amoral sociopaths...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 5:20pm
"You also really should examine this "choice" issue with respect to breaking the law. I have met many prisoners who have rehabilitated themselves in prison and learned a marketable trade, but when they are released they encounter "extreme" discrimination because of their prison record and as a consequence are unable to find work."
Are you speaking of the violent or non-violent felons?
"You can only go so long without food and shelter before resorting to crime again, so we do need to look at ourselves as "part of" the problem because employment discrimination against former inmates is REAL!"
Again, are you speaking about violent or non-violent felons?
"For every inmate that we turn away because of their record, "we" are creating a new victim of crime."
"Think about it."
Ok, violent or non-violent, which is it?
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 5:23pm
Posted by ACOOK
By "violent" do you mean a murderer, rapist type or a bank robber (and other crimes labeled violent that involved no physical violence)?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 5:29pm
"sorry about the pontificating, ACOOK, but i find the death penalty sketchy at best, terrifying when wielded by amoral sociopaths..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/10/2007 @ 5:20pm
No worries IBBLE. Johnathan liked to pontificate too... :) He would have turned 57 this month.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 5:37pm
Ok, violent or non-violent, which is it?
Non-violent, which is more than half of the inmate population!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 5:38pm
"By "violent" do you mean a murderer, rapist type or a bank robber (and other crimes labeled violent that involved no physical violence)?"
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 5:29pm
That's what I would like to clarify with METTEYYA. I'm not going to assume what his position is.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 5:41pm
"Non-violent, which is more than half of the inmate population!"
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 5:38pm
Ok, I'm going to get a little picky on this one, which "non-violent" offenders should we consider not discriminating against.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 5:47pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 5:47pm
How about small time drug posession?
So after 30 years you still have not satisfied your lust for revenge? Do you live for anything else?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/10/2007 @ 5:48pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/10/2007 @ 5:37pm |
:)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 5:50pm
I have also met "violent" inmates, inmates convicted of murder when they were 18, and 20 years later "they" cannot believe they were so disrespectful of the life of another human being.
One guy, after converting to Islam (yes, Islam!), used to write his victim's family every week, begging for forgiveness. After about 10 years, one of the family members wrote him back with a picture of the victim enclosed and told him "to rot in prison where he belongs!"
Despite these expressions of rage, he kept the picture of his victim posted in his cell and prays 5 times a day in front of the victim's picture, asking God (Allah) for forgiveness.
Is he the same person who was caught up in a gang when he was 18? Certainly not. And although I do not think he will ever get out, I really do think he has "grown up" and would probably never harm anyone again.
I think we get caught up sometimes in "our own" anger that we fail to see the humanity of those who commit the crimes. It's as if they cease to be human beings.
And as we have seen with the Holocaust and Rwanda, when we cease to regard each other as fellow human beings, then we can justify just about anything; but does that make it right, does it eliminate our anger, or does it stop the cycle of victimization?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 5:59pm
ACOOK -
Is it "Jonathan" or "Johnathan?"
Posted by Hman23 at 07/10/2007 @ 6:01pm
Those that turn to religion while incarcerated are--9 times out of ten--weak minded; they're gonna do whatever when they get out.
People make mistakes. If they are unable to support themselves after they're released, they are definitely going to make another mistake. You can't just lock'em up and throw away the key in most cases. It's a problem that requires rational thought, not emotion.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 6:04pm
And ACOOK -
Was it one killer or two, as with the spelling of your brother's name, you have referenced both.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/10/2007 @ 6:05pm
which "non-violent" offenders should we consider not discriminating against.
I don't think we should discriminate against anyone unless it is directly related to the job they are asked to do.
So would I employ a bank robber in a bank? Probably not. But if this bank robber applied as an architect's apprentice and was a good draftsman, why not? What does bank robbery have to do with architectural drawings? Absolutely nothing! So why would we discriminate in this case?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 6:06pm
JR, my opinion has everything to do with the death penalty.
your anecdote has to do with parole, not the death penalty. criminals are paroled in states with the death penalty, same as in states without. it's just not relevant to this discussion.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 6:09pm
....I had a reasonably successful small business where I had a few employees,but I'm hardly an expert on the subject and know people who have never had a business who know more about the subject than I do.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/10/2007 @ 3:32pm
LOL! I didn't claim having personal experience w/owned business grants one the title of "expert"....just as having cooked a few meals don't make me an "expert" on cooking! That said, I again find you amusing, as often happens......You are willing to put down your own life's experience just to make a minor partisan point!
To be clear, I am far more inclined to take the views of business owners (hands-on type) on the subject of business (regulations and bureaucracies) than someone who has never been a biz owner! Not that they are experts.....except perhaps in the narrow sense of the type of business they actually ran.
As for those you say have more knowledge than you but have never actually ran businesses, and hold themselves out as experts, well, they are academics or pundits....nothing more!
Posted by Happy at 07/10/2007 @ 6:12pm
It looks like the discussion is evolving a bit to really consider some of the serious issues.
First, I think the mercy question is absolutely relevant. A number of people say that the death penalty should be rejected based on a concern for our fellow human being, particularly since people can change in prison. Naturally, there are only three alternatives to the death penalty. Either you just lock them in a cell and throw away the key, give them some prison sentence with possibility of parole, or you let them go. No one seems to be willing to defend the second one, so given that, I think my question from before is still relevant. Assuming that you defend prison for life as an alternative, can that be said to meet the standard of mercy any better than the death penalty? So long as you're also unwilling to defend letting them go, it's unclear why mercy would then constitute an argument against execution.
Also, the retributive question still comes back. It was briefly mentioned by another poster, but I think the question is valid. Does the factor of retribution and desert have any role to play in the system? We seem to acknowledge one in allowing retribution to set a rough ceiling on punishment, so should it have a role in setting a "floor" as well?
Finally, I think there's a really interesting question about justice and distance. Can we actually say that justice should involve, as I think Spence himself described it, a kind of cold, detached evaluation? I think that's incredibly dangerous, because it leaves out any recognition of the human beings involved in the process, and though it's probably bad to be consumed by a personal vendetta, it also seems problematic to act without any deep awareness of what the lives involved.
This is a very difficult and involved issue, especially for those people who have been personally affected by it, and I'm really glad to see the discussion slowly moving to acknowledge that.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2007 @ 6:57pm
I find it more odd when the "christian wrong" actually act on their beliefs that they profess so stridently.... like Jesus siad not to. They don't give a shit what Jesus said or believed, they just want authority to complete their American Taliban take over of society. Hypocrites all. LUVVY more than most.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 12:59pm
That's 'cause these people are in fact followers of Paul, the first corrupter of Christ.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/10/2007 @ 7:30pm
Clearly, we have a president incapable of empathy. If it isn't happening to him, it isn't happening. And since he has been protected and coddled by family, friends of family, and those who stood to gain by placing him in power, Mr. Bush has never suffered. For this truncation of his character alone, he is a very dangerous man.
Posted by srish at 07/10/2007 @ 7:32pm
The death penalty is as barbaric as the crimes commited against the victims. Yeah I said it. And I don't care what the circumstance.I don't care if you a black serial killer who killed 80 wholesome white women and raped them!! It has also been proven that it is not a deterrant to crime. So although the tenants of our laws do not allow us to use retribution (lets call it what it is: revenge)as a reason this is the only purpose it serves. And it doesn't even do that well.
The death penalty is a blight to any civilized society. You can't have it both ways either killing is wrong or its not. As an ardent believer in that truth, it is not to say that revenge does not have its place. It would be more honest of us if we allowed the family's of the victims to execute a death sentence. The family is allowed to choose the method and time and place to end the life of the convicted. This would serve the catharsis that death penalty supporters swear all families feel afterwards, although it has been widely shown that this is not true even when the families are pro death penalty. And it would save the tax payers a whole bunch of money on appeals and the like and the cost of state sanctioned murder.
And for those of you who do not believe this is a racial issue. Please see the Southern Poverty Law Centers statistics on black males convicted of crimes, black males sentenced to death and black males who currently have a prison address. The Innocence Project is another good resource. Not to say that poverty is not also the other half of this dirty-dirty mark we have on our justice system.
Posted by micuyler at 07/10/2007 @ 7:36pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/10/2007 @ 4:36pm
Doc, I appreciate a little truth on Bush...but this is VERY little.
The man has "killed" (if you want) 3500+ GIs and an untold number of Iraqis in a stupid and pointless war. His "cruelty" (if you like) as Texas governor is pretty tertiary compared to that.
And what purpose does this serve? Those who still support the man don't care...and those of us who don't, didn't need MORE reason not to.
Again, I'd understand Ms vanden Heuvel's point in bringing it up if it was as some "poke to the ribs" to the Democrats to come out against the death penalty (to avoid comparisons to Bush or something)....but she isn't (or isn't directly) and THEY are not running on that (atleast not the Top Tier candidates).
Bush can't run again...will leave office a disgrace...and the millstone of Iraq, the deficit, likely Constitutional violations, maybe even HSUB's impeachment will FAR outweigh the 5 lbs donut weights of "He smirked at death row inmates".
This smells like "red meat" or maybe just a slow news day for Ms vanden Heuvel.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 7:43pm
Can anybody verify that box of rocks is a male? I have my doubts.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 4:46pm
Why is it important to you if I'm a man or woman? If I was a woman would you call me a "dyke" or "carpet-muncher"....purely as a "use of words" of course, nothing bigoted....heheh.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 7:45pm
Assuming that you defend prison for life as an alternative, can that be said to meet the standard of mercy any better than the death penalty?
The plain fact is the that US over-incarcerates. On a per capita basis, we are way down there with Russia, and no other industrialized country comes even close to our numbers.
Life in prison should be reserved for the worst "serial" murders, rapists and violent offenders that are deemed incapable of rehabilitation because of some mental defect that we are unable to treat. This group is a very small number and would comprise less than 10% of those currently serving life sentences, especially in California with this three-strikes nonsense (life is not a game and human beings are not baseball players!).
Everyone else should receive some "personalized" program that could lead to their eventual release if they really are deemed by "independent" professionals to no longer be a threat to society. Much of this personalized treatment should focus on the "causes" of their incarceration and redress educational, psychological, emotional and spiritual (not necessarily in a religious sense) shortcomings so they can become productive members of society when they are released.
If the Netherlands can achieve less than 10% recidivism rates, then why can't the richest nation on Earth do the same?
Granted, this will turn prisons into schools, psychiatric wards, job training facilities, and spiritual centers, but what's wrong with that if we end up with far less recidivism and therefore far less victims. Most don't realize that when you release an inmate whose "cause" of incarceration was not addressed, YOU ARE CREATING A NEW VICTIM OF CRIME!! So if you really are for "victims' rights", you ought to be the biggest cheerleader for prisoner rehabilitation that there ever was!
As for your specific question concerning mercy. I think this is a question you should ask inmates with life sentences and no possibility of parole. If "they" believe it would be more merciful to be put to death, then this is sort of like the euthanasia cases in which shortening the period of one's suffering by terminating one's life early is an option.
But to abstractly say "we" the non-incarcerated think it is more merciful to be put to death than to to be imprisoned for life, so we are going to "impose" our idea of mercy on even those who don't agree with our idea of mercy, transforms "mercy killing" into a euphemism for vengeance and expedience.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 7:55pm
Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 7:45pm
clam digger?
for my part i love the lesbians. sort of like good hard work, could sit around and watch it all day long...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 8:53pm
Naturally, there are only three alternatives to the death penalty. Either you just lock them in a cell and throw away the key, give them some prison sentence with possibility of parole, or you let them go.
this is complete nonsense. when a violent criminal is convicted, no one, I repeat no one will just let them go. our laws do not allow it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 8:56pm
ACOOK -
"Is it "Jonathan" or "Johnathan?"
Posted by HMAN23 07/10/2007 @ 6:01pm
It's Johnathan. Typing on a computer is not one of my strong points. Also, I should use the "preview" screen before I submit my responses... :)
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 9:08pm
Tom Delay better hope that his conviction is final before Dubya leaves office so that he can get his pardon.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/10/2007 @ 5:44pm
The Frankgrits system of justice, convicted before the trial.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/10/2007 @ 9:50pm
And ACOOK -
"Was it one killer or two, as with the spelling of your brother's name, you have referenced both."
Posted by HMAN23 07/10/2007 @ 6:05pm
There were two. Both men had records, but one of them was out on parole after serving 7 years on a 15 year sentence for first degree manslaughter. The other had been out about a year after serving 5 years for armed robbery.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 9:53pm
Odds and ends:
I found it odd that the Christian right supported Bush after he had their poster child for Jesus executed.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
Being forgiven by God does not mean that we are not still accountable to society for our actions.
Dr.D-The Christian right is quite selective in what teachings they accept and what they ignore.Just like they are selective in what "sins" they emphasize and which they ignore.The reason they blame everything on gays and not adulterers is because most of them aren't gay,but adultery is the favorite past time for many of them.So they emphasize the "sins" they aren't doing and ignore the rest.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/10/2007 @ 1:05pm
Wrong, the Bible clearly defines all sin as equal in separation from God. Adultery and lying are equally condemning in God's sight. Any Christian guilty of adultery has sinned just as much as anyone continuing in homosexual activities. Whether it be adultery, lying, or homosexual acts, unless one repents and changes course to follow God's moral standards, hell awaits.
I've always found it more than a little ironic that those would would sing the loudest about the Lord's omnipotence would think that he needed help killing people.
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/10/2007 @ 1:34pm
Would you prefer that God sent down a bolt of lightening or something similar upon pronouncement of a guilty verdict? God established governments for the purpose of carrying out justice. There still remains a more serious judgment after death.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/10/2007 @ 9:57pm
"If the Netherlands can achieve less than 10% recidivism rates, then why can't the richest nation on Earth do the same?"
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 7:55pm
MET, The Netherlands have less to work with then we do. How do you compare 8 million to 390 million? If they were as big a nation as the US, they would have a higher recidivisim rate too.
Posted by ACook at 07/10/2007 @ 9:58pm
BTW, Katrina's Gary Graham example is an excellent example of how twisted the left can get in misrepresenting the truth when it comes to most any issue of which the death penalty is one they continually shine at lying about.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/graham.htm
Posted by antiliberal at 07/10/2007 @ 9:58pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/10/2007 @ 8:53pm
As stated on the other thread, Empty Spence's problem with gays (via his constant use of homophobic remarks as a "put-down") is pretty obvious.
I don't completely hold with the "If you hate gays, you must be one and self-loathing" theory (though it may be true in his case)....he claims to be from Texas "working class" background, so he probably just heard a lot of "qware" (queer) and "fag" epithets thrown around and never thought anything about using it.
Like a good number of "progressives", he's still not completely aware of gay issues or discrimination (hey, I was no better 15 years ago, but atleast have tried to grow)...but he thinks he's "completely okay" with gay rights, when deep down, he still thinks of limp-wristed stereotypes and the use of that negative image being "okay" to fling around at political/personal opponents.
BTW, I'll check with DARLADOON, but I don't think getting hot for lesbians is bigotry....'least I HOPE not!...heheh.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 10:27pm
MET, The Netherlands have less to work with then we do. How do you compare 8 million to 390 million? If they were as big a nation as the US, they would have a higher recidivisim rate too.
It's not a question of size, it is a question of will and the correct policies.
Most incarceration occurs on the state level, so if you took a large state like NY, which is about the size of the Netherlands (16,570,613, not 8 million as you suggest), and just implemented the same rehabilitation-focused policies, you probably would see a dramatic decrease in recidivism. As Katrina often says, if it works in NY, it can work anywhere, so why not spread this model state by state until we fix the problem?
One of the reasons we don't do this is blind hubris (the US is the greatest nation on Earth, rah, rah , rah!!), which results in an inability to look at other countries with better systems. The other reason is the subject of Katrina's article here which is a fixation on "punishment". This fixation is a result of electioneering by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove who sought to divide the country (us vs. them) on terms favorable to a particular election outcome. And when you really break down the Willie Horton thing, it was all about election outcome, playing to the fears of white America that some black guy is going to get off parole and rape their daughter. It was despicable, shortsighted (as are most election schemes), and the consequence is a budget buster prison industrial complex that is out of control and "more" Willie Hortons than ever because the "causes" of incarceration are not being addressed while the inmate is in prison.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2007 @ 10:28pm
God established governments
absurd drivel.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 10:35pm
Assuming that you defend prison for life as an alternative, can that be said to meet the standard of mercy any better than the death penalty?
The plain fact is the that US over-incarcerates. On a per capita basis, we are way down there with Russia, and no other industrialized country comes even close to our numbers.
Life in prison should be reserved for the worst "serial" murders, rapists and violent offenders that are deemed incapable of rehabilitation because of some mental defect that we are unable to treat. This group is a very small number and would comprise less than 10% of those currently serving life sentences, especially in California with this three-strikes nonsense (life is not a game and human beings are not baseball players!).
Everyone else should receive some "personalized" program that could lead to their eventual release if they really are deemed by "independent" professionals to no longer be a threat to society.
Granted, this will turn prisons into schools, psychiatric wards, job training facilities, and spiritual centers, but what's wrong with that if we end up with far less recidivism and therefore far less victims. Most don't realize that when you release an inmate whose "cause" of incarceration was not addressed, YOU ARE CREATING A NEW VICTIM OF CRIME!! So if you really are for "victims' rights", you ought to be the biggest cheerleader for prisoner rehabilitation that there ever was!
As for your specific question concerning mercy. I think this is a question you should ask inmates with life sentences and no possibility of parole. If "they" believe it would be more merciful to be put to death, then this is sort of like the euthanasia cases in which shortening the period of one's suffering by terminating one's life early is an option.
But to abstractly say "we" the non-incarcerated think it is more merciful to be put to death than to to be imprisoned for life, so we are going to "impose" our idea of mercy on even those who don't agree with our idea of mercy, transforms "mercy killing" into a euphemism for vengeance and expedience.
Posted by METTEYYA 07/10/2007 @ 7:55pm
OK; you seem to be defending a basic rehabilitative perspective. One point that I absolutely agree with is that the US significantly over-incarcerates, and I think that's a real problem for the "death penalty-to-lifer" position. If it's true that the US over-incarcerates to a huge extent already, I'm not sure why it could possibly be a good thing for us to magnify that problem.
THe question then becomes: is a rehabilitative system effective? I'm not actually sure that it is. For one thing, it's really questionable how effective we can actually be at assessing rehabilitation; parole boards already have these kinds of issues in trying to determine who's really reformed and who is just saying the right things to go free. Moreover, this thread has already given us some moving illustrations of this kind of failure.
I also think there are problems with a purely rehabilitative system, independent of whether the program can be successful. For one thing, you necessarily lose the deterrent factor, especially since there's no predictable penalty. For another thing, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the extent to which crime can really be understood simply as a medical condition.
Naturally, there are only three alternatives to the death penalty. Either you just lock them in a cell and throw away the key, give them some prison sentence with possibility of parole, or you let them go.
this is complete nonsense. when a violent criminal is convicted, no one, I repeat no one will just let them go. our laws do not allow it.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/10/2007 @ 8:56pm
Right, that's my point. What I'm saying is that there's really only one live option for those who would otherwise get the death penalty (since I think those cases would likely fall into the 10% that Mettya alluded to): life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Given that alternative, it's unclear why life imprisonment is so much more merciful that the death penalty can be treated as outright barbaric by comparison. In other words, the premise "we should be merciful" doesn't clear favor life imprisonment over death. That's the whole thrust of this argument.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/10/2007 @ 9:57pm
Being forgiven by God does not mean that we are not still accountable to society for our actions.
Right, since the implication of that would be that no criminal justice system could ever exist.
Wrong, the Bible clearly defines all sin as equal in separation from God. Adultery and lying are equally condemning in God's sight. Any Christian guilty of adultery has sinned just as much as anyone continuing in homosexual activities. Whether it be adultery, lying, or homosexual acts, unless one repents and changes course to follow God's moral standards, hell awaits.
I think that a great deal of this is highly problematic. One, the notion of homosexuality as sin has serious issues of its own.
Two, the very last sentence of your argument creates an incredibly perverse image of God. The easiest problem to deal with, of course, is the fact that your position makes heaven unattainable. Since you've said that someone not only has to repent but also to follow God's moral standards absolutely (since all violations are equal), imperfect humans will always fall short. That's the point of grace.
More fundamentally, though, what kind of God are you defending? What sense does it make to suggest a loving God who is willing to send people to hell for even the slightest offenses, unless they just happen to have embraced belief in him and rejected all possible moral failings? What would we say about a father who was willing to forgive offenses if we asked him to, but would torture us infinitely if we did not? This position seems utterly anathema to the most fundamental notions of a good and loving God, or of a being that anyone would or should want to love.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2007 @ 10:48pm
BTW, I'll check with DARLADOON, but I don't think getting hot for lesbians is bigotry....'least I HOPE not!...heheh.
Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 10:27pm
i'll ask my ex gf...she got hot for lesbians too. that was a two edged sword...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 10:49pm
As much as I really really hate to ask this...is your response really "nuh-uh"? Precisely what perspective is lacking that would be necessary to make some assessment about life imprisonment v. death? Is any politician who has never been in prison also not in any position to make that assessment, and thus utterly incapable of making any decisions about the judicial system whatsoever? What precisely is your argument here?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2007 @ 11:15pm
parole boards already have these kinds of issues in trying to determine who's really reformed and who is just saying the right things to go free. Moreover, this thread has already given us some moving illustrations of this kind of failure.
Parole boards have been politicized and are usually appointed by governors who are afraid of the Willie Horton attack. As I said in my earlier post, there are more Willie Hortons if you do NOT rehabilitate because the causes of incarceration never get addressed while in prison. And if you have let most prisoners out anyway since the majority of inmates have less than life sentences, then why not try to keep them out by addressing the root causes? Do you really want more of them to come back to prison by creating another victim with another crime?
Let's "minimize" the Willie Hortons by addressing the causes of incarceration! (this should have been Dukakis' retort to the Willie Horton attack ad)
And "saying the right things to get free" only occurs in a small number of cases with indeterminate sentencing (e.g., 15-life) and these sentences are a small minority of prisoner releases as the vast majority of prisoners are released after serving a determinate sentence (e.g., 5 years, 7 years, etc).
Also, it isn't really about what you "say" to the parole board that will set you free, as there is a pretty extensive set of criteria that focuses more on your "behavior" in prison. So a guy who hasn't even been in a fist fight for the past 15 years in prison, has learned two or three trades, has shown remorse, and volunteers to help others is less likely to be violent than someone who gets into trouble with the prison staff, fights with inmates, and plays dominoes all day.
Sure, they get it wrong sometimes, but this is clearly the exception, not the rule. (Willie Horton is the exception, not the rule - this is another Dukakis retort that would have been effective)
Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2007 @ 12:40am
This blog confirms what I've believed for a long time--not only is Bush "cruel," he's sadistic. Torture, abuse, humiliation, secret prisons, kidnapping, the whole panoply of crimes against our common humanity, along with dead and injured soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of refugees--does it give him a secret thrill to have the power to cause this much pain?
Posted by msannecath at 07/11/2007 @ 12:41am
As they say it stinks from the head down:
WASHINGTON, July 10 -- Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.
Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.
"I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.
Dr. Carmona is one of a growing list of present and former administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.
Dr. Carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term, from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. Before being nominated, he was in the Army Special Forces, earned two purple hearts in the Vietnam War and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the Pima County, Ariz., SWAT team. He received a bachelor's degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his M.D. in 1979, both from the University of California, San Francisco. He is now vice chairman of Canyon Ranch, a resort and residential development company.
His testimony comes two days before the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. Two members of the Senate health committee have already declared their opposition to Dr. Holsinger's nomination because of a 1991 report he wrote that concluded that homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy. Dr. Carmona's testimony may further complicate Dr. Holsinger's nomination.
In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration's actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.
On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.
"I was told to stay away from those because we've already decided which way we want to go," Dr. Carmona said.
He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.
"And I said to myself, ‘I realize why I've been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don't understand the science,' " he said. "I was never invited back."
Dr. Carmona described being invited to testify at the government's nine-month racketeering trial of the tobacco industry that ended in 2005. He said top administration officials discouraged him from testifying while simultaneously telling the lead government lawyer in the case that he was not competent to testify. Dr. Carmona testified anyway.
Sharon Y. Eubanks, director of the Justice Department's tobacco litigation team, was in the audience during Dr. Carmona's testimony.
"What he said is all correct," she said. "He was one of the most powerful witnesses. His testimony was very important."
Dr. Carmona said that he felt that the duty of the surgeon general, often called the "nation's doctor," was to tackle many of the nation's most controversial health topics and to issue balanced reports about the studies underlying them.
When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance "so that we can have, if you will, informed consent."
"I was told to stand down and not speak about it," he said. "It was removed from my speeches."
The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.
Similarly, Dr. Carmona wanted to address the controversial topic of sexual education, he said. Scientific studies suggest that the most effective approach includes a discussion of contraceptives.
"However there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect," he said.
Dr. Carmona said drafts of surgeon general reports on global health and prison health were still being debated by the administration. The global health report was never approved, Dr. Carmona said, because he refused to sprinkle the report with glowing references to the efforts of the Bush administration.
"The correctional health care report is pointing out the inadequacies of health care within our correctional health care system," he said. "It would force the government on a course of action to improve that."
Because the administration does not want to spend more money on prisoners' health care, the report has been delayed, Dr. Carmona said.
"For us, the science was pretty easy," he said. "These people go back into the community and take diseases with them." He added, "This is not about the crime. It's about protecting the public."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 01:42am
Got to impeach hsuB/cHeney and get some sane, moral, competent and intelligent people in the exec to start fixing this mess. The longer we wait the more shit there'll be and at some point the idea is to pile it so high everyone just says fuck-it and the poopooers like Maskerina win it for the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.
Got to shine as much light on this evil as possible-- so much light, it burns.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 01:51am
Can one say habitual liar without a conscience:
Bush Stands Behind Current Iraq Policy
BEN FELLER | July 10, 2007 05:13 PM EST |
CLEVELAND -- President Bush, facing new pressure to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, said Tuesday he won't consider it until hearing a fresh assessment from his top commander there this fall.
"We just started. We got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago," Bush told the Greater Cleveland Partnership, a coalition of Northeast Ohio companies.
Bush's comments came as the White House scrambled to respond to growing opposition to the war.
"I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad _ I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary for the security of the United States and the peace of the world," Bush said. "I strongly believe it, and I strongly believe we'll prevail."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 08:01am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/11/2007 @ 08:01am | ignore this person
our grandchildren will be so proud.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 08:55am
If you believe the death penalty is wrong in all cases, no matter the crime, I'm not speaking to you, since I believe you're marching to your own drummer. If you believe the death penalty should be applied the way George Bush cravenly and cruelly applied it as governor of Texas, I am speaking to you.
There is a qualified place for the death penalty in our society, but it must be scrupulously applied and rigorously reviewed under the microscope of current science and technology, and there should be strict guidelines for its application at the federal level, not left to the vagaries of states like Texas, which in the comparison offered by Vanden Heuvel, appeared downright "bloodthirsty" during the "reign" of Shrub, next to Illinois and other states.
There are valid historical reasons most Jews are uncomfortable with Germans, Chinese with Japanese, Tutsi's with Hutu's, American or South African Blacks with Whites. It's not a stretch to add oxymoronic "Texas Justice", especially under Bush, to the list of egregious offical behavior that too often defies any hint of humaneness, fairness, compassion, due process...or justice.
Case-By-Case. That is the rational, intelligent basis for the application of the death penalty, with all the deliberate, science-based qualifications cited above, and prescribed by a nation of laws and due process. In the sweep of history, the brief period during which a miscreant like George Bush was able to kidnap the reins of power--and lay waste to the best, most ennobling aspects of our Constitution and our moral ascendency across the world--will be regarded with either abject shame and disgrace, or as the true beginning of a frightening New World Order. The 2008 election is "the fork in the road". Which direction? The implications are staggering for the future of this particular democratic idea called America.
Posted by stonecutter at 07/11/2007 @ 09:15am
antiliberal-You came up with a very lame excuse for executing the woman who was the poster child for Jesus.That violated a multitude of Christian principles like forgiveness and redemption.Odd that you people never mention adulterers whenever you're trying to blame someone for 9/11 and natural disasters.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 09:18am
You guys get really off topic at times. We should really try to focus on the specific article we are critiqing or the issues that arise from it.
And I really don't understand how people try to reationalize government sanctioned murder with religion and/or science? Which a lot of you seem to be doing here. Do you not see the futility in it all? The idea that some people deserve to die is not exactly untrue, but lets get real for you believers would you be willing to administer the injection with your own two hands? If so then hey what can I say if not then there are more questions one needs to ask onesself.
Metteyya has been so kind as to alert us to the failings of prisons who often call themselves rehabilitation centers but forget to rehab those within its walls. But she forgets to remind us of the corruptness surrounding the prison industrial complex where you have people working for basically a slave wage providing many of the services in our lives, and the number of max security prisons growing day by day. I mean we lock up drug addicts in this country!!! How crazy is that? The California prison system is traded on the Stock exchange it is so lucrative. And within the walls many of the programs designed to rehab people and keep the peace have been cut, schools, art, etc. Often leading to that recedivism spoken about occuring while the person is still behind bars, you go in a petty thief you come out a murderer. Not to mention the rampant occurence of rape.
The death penalty is just the gravest blight in a long line of problems with the penal system. Until we come to a midset that allows us to think like civil human beings there will be no rehab for these people or for the system or ourselves.
Posted by micuyler at 07/11/2007 @ 12:34pm
MIC, true, true. an important fact is that the incarcerated are not counted in the census of their home community, but rather in the place of their incarceration. this shameful fact greatly enhances the political power of the communities housing the prisons.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 12:52pm
But she forgets to remind us of the corruptness surrounding the prison industrial complex where you have people working for basically a slave wage providing many of the services in our lives, and the number of max security prisons growing day by day.
Micuyler,
Just for the record, I am a man, not a woman. Metteyya is not a Spanish name, it comes from the Pali language spoken by the Buddha.
I agree that the prison industrial complex is corrupt. In California, the prison union is so strong they pretty much run the California government (sort of like AIPAC, but on a state level).
Despite this corruption, if we had political leaders with courage who are able to make the case that "rehabilitation = less Willie Hortons", I think we could get off this punishment fixation that in the end only punishes "us" with more crime.
It is sufficient punishment to have your freedom taken away and forcibly removed from loved ones, so why are we adding to the punishment mix, no school, including no correspondence school or college, no "marketable skill-based" job training, no psychological help, no victim-offender programs for mutual healing, no family support, and no laws barring employment discrimination in jobs not related to the offense?
This sort of extra punishment, especially job discrimination, leads to more crimes and more victims. Once someone has been convicted and are serving their time, we should do everything humanly possible to re-integrate these ex-offenders into society.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2007 @ 12:59pm
antiliberal-You came up with a very lame excuse for executing the woman who was the poster child for Jesus.That violated a multitude of Christian principles like forgiveness and redemption.Odd that you people never mention adulterers whenever you're trying to blame someone for 9/11 and natural disasters.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/11/2007 @ 09:18am
Not lame at all. Forgiveness about sin belongs only to God. For He is the one who was offended. This does not negate forgiveness and redemption. You are linking earthly and heavenly/eternal status which are different.
Christ did not teach nor advocate abolishing the death penalty
Christ Himself regarded capital punishment as a just penalty for murder when He said to one of his disciples after he tried to kill a soldier who had come to arrest Jesus: "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52)
Christ also pronounced this judgment on those who rebelled against their king:
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." -Luke19:27
In the 19:27 parable their king is Jesus. So it is very clear that neither Christ nor His apostles intended to abrogate the God-given responsibility of the state (under Old Testament Law) to protect its citizens and enforce justice by capital punishment.
religious philosopher Saint Aquinas said that in a religious sense, executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer:
"...a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. for capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime...the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy."
Indeed, the death penalty fits in very well with Christian beliefs, especially if one considers Christ's crucifixion. For man's sins were so great, that only an execution could atone for them. Just as Christ died to atone for Man's sins, so must the murderer die to atone for his, following Christ's example. Without atonement for one's sins, forgiveness and redemption look cheap and frivolous. Christ demonstrated just that when he died on the cross for us. It can be confirmed that biblical text finds that it is a violation of God's mandate not to execute murderers-and nowhere does the text contradict this finding.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/11/2007 @ 1:41pm
God established governments
absurd drivel.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/10/2007 @ 10:35pm
Wow, with a concise, undeniable statement of fact like that JR, how can I possible deny your superior claim?
Perhaps we can compare historical references?
The Code of Hammurabi
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/code_of_hammurabi.asp
The Magna Carta
A translation of Magna Carta as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297
[Preamble] EDWARD by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, to all Archbishops, Bishops, etc. We have seen the Great Charter of the Lord HENRY, sometimes King of England, our father, of the Liberties of England, in these words: Henry by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs and other our faithful Subjects , which shall see this present Charter, Greeting. Know ye that we, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls of our progenitors and successors, Kings of England, to the advancement of holy Church, and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all freemen of this our realm, these liberties following, to be kept in our kingdom of England for ever.
[1] First, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our Heirs for ever, That the Church of England shall be free, and shall have her whole rights and liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs for ever.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/magna_carta.asp
English Bill of Rights
1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/english_bill_of_rights.asp
The Declaration of Independence
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/declaration_of_independence.asp
Step beyond what is human, elect for the Divine Word, and establish your leadership, along with all the friends you have.
1. Hinduism. Atharva Veda 7.105
If your kingdom exists for the doctrine And not for fame or desire, Then it will be extremely fruitful. If not, its fruit will be misfortune.
2. Buddhism. Nagarjuna, Precious Garland 327
If [a ruler] enjoins fear of God, the Exalted and Glorious, and dispenses justice, there will be great reward for him; and if he enjoins otherwise, it resounds on him.
5. Islam. Hadith of Muslim
The Creator... projected that excellent form, justice (dharma). This justice is the controller of the ruler. Therefore there is nothing higher than justice. So even a weak man hopes to defeat a stronger man through justice, as one does with the help of a king.
6. Hinduism. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14
The Celestial Wheel is no paternal heritage of yours. You yourself do good, as I did, and earn the Wheel. Act up to the noble ideal of the duty which is set before true world sovereigns.... You, leaning on the Law, honoring, respecting, and revering it, doing homage to it, hallowing it, being yourself a banner of the Law, a signal of the Law, having the Law as your master, should provide the right watch, ward, and protection for your own people, for the army, for the nobles, for vassals, for brahmins, and householders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world, and for beasts and birds. Throughout your kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail. And whosoever in your kingdom is poor, to him let wealth be given.
12. Buddhism. Digha Nikaya iii.60-61, Chakkavatti-sihanada Suttanta
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme154.htm#12
Posted by antiliberal at 07/11/2007 @ 1:46pm
Antiliberal-If someone murders your family member then God is hardly the only one who was offended.If you commit adultery then God is hardly the only one who was offended.Forgiveness is not just something God is supposed to do.The sword example had no relevance to the issue of capital punishment.Jesus was speaking about war.If one innocent person is ever executed then those who support capital punishment to the degree you do are murderers.Do you believe that married women who are raped in a city should be executed as the Bible says?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 2:09pm
antiliberal-Why don't you come on here supporting the idea of a monarchy since those are what the OT god wants?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 2:14pm
antiliberal-Using Bible quotes to support a position is pointless since Bible quotes can and have been used to support any position on most any subject including contradictory positions.That's one of the problems with the Bible.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 2:18pm
Antiliberal-If someone murders your family member then God is hardly the only one who was offended.If you commit adultery then God is hardly the only one who was offended.Forgiveness is not just something God is supposed to do.The sword example had no relevance to the issue of capital punishment.Jesus was speaking about war.If one innocent person is ever executed then those who support capital punishment to the degree you do are murderers.Do you believe that married women who are raped in a city should be executed as the Bible says?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/11/2007 @ 2:09pm
antiliberal-Why don't you come on here supporting the idea of a monarchy since those are what the OT god wants?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/11/2007 @ 2:14pm
At no time have I cited OT law for my reasonings. That is a strawman that you and others constantly resort to rather than debate the merits of my arguments. I have no desire to see a monarchy or theocracy (at least until Christ returns when He will establish His rule).
Sin and forgiveness for sins belong solely to God. Offense against an individual requires seeking their forgiveness to restore a relationship just as it does with God. But as King David rightly stated in Psalm 51:4, it is against God, and God alone that sin is committed. Sin as a legal indictment is solely a violation of the relationship with God, not man. Thus it is not for man to judge sin, but God.
It is the laws of mankind where we have our accountability in this life. When we violate mans laws, simply saying you are sorry is not sufficient.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/11/2007 @ 2:51pm
Throughout your kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail.
Sorry Mr. Anti-Liberal,
The death penalty is not supported by this passage. Accountability AND correction must go hand in hand. If you are only interested in accountability, you exacerbate the problem of lawlessness by not correcting the behavior that created it.
The death penalty does not correct anything, and it certainly does not deter the vast majority of murders that are done "in the heat of passion". Do you really think a father who is angry at the guy who just raped his daughter stops and reflects upon the death penalty when he takes out his rifle and shoots the SOB?
The death penalty has always been about vengeance, and that vengeance is incapable of stopping more murderers.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2007 @ 2:58pm
Antiliberal-Did you know that there is not one shred of evidence that David existed?Did you know that this "David" also wrote a psalm where he asked his god to smash the heads of his enemies babies on rocks?Don't listen to sociopaths like this "David" who murdered people and stole their food rather than earning his food.Don't listen to people who murder their friend in order to bang his wife like "David" did.Why did you quote the OT if you don't quote the OT?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 3:07pm
It is sufficient punishment to have your freedom taken away and forcibly removed from loved ones, so why are we adding to the punishment mix, no school, including no correspondence school or college, no "marketable skill-based" job training, no psychological help, no victim-offender programs for mutual healing, no family support, and no laws barring employment discrimination in jobs not related to the offense?
This sort of extra punishment, especially job discrimination, leads to more crimes and more victims. Once someone has been convicted and are serving their time, we should do everything humanly possible to re-integrate these ex-offenders into society.
Posted by METTEYYA 07/11/2007 @ 12:59pm
I actually think this makes a lot of sense. If we want to maintain a system that does not perpetuate a vicious cycle of crime, we have to ensure that those who are released have both the willingness and the ability to reenter society. I'm skeptical, though, about our ability to do the former, since groups like parole boards can be fooled. This is particularly the case given that the parole board is only capable of assessing behavior in prison, which can easily be faked by someone who merely wants to get out.
That being said, and I want to makes this sort of brief to minimize tangents, the theological arguments made for the death penalty are pretty bad.
One, you cannot justify the idea that God established governments merely by quoting statements by governments that say "by the way, God put us in power." It almost seems as though many governments could, say, use that as an excuse to oppress people, because if they were put in power by God, who hath the right to oppose that? Governments are composed of human beings, and as such, are as vulnerable to pride and lust for power as any other institution. No government has any claim to unconditional blessing.
The Thomist justification for punishment is equally atrocious. If you take that line of reasoning seriously, I can act in God's name by credibly threatening the lives of some random set of people. If they know I'm going to kill them, they know the date on which they will die, and as fallible people, they then have the opportunity to repent. And yet...that would be morally abominable.
Briefly on the Gospel quotes: 1) "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" isn't a justification for capital punishment, unless all who execute also deserve death. That turns your entire position.
2) Crucifixion isn't a warrant; assuming it was necessary to expunge sin, we either know just that it was necessary for the collective sin of humanity (in which case that doesn't clearly apply to an individual's crimes) or that it was necessary for any non-zero level of sin (in which case we should execute for ALL CRIMES). These are the only two options, and either one of them destroys your position.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 3:13pm
Sorry, my post got thrown back in time...
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 3:14pm
It got put right before Cuyler's 12:34 post
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 3:16pm
I'M, you're accepting a false premise to start with. (easily done by most folks, even non-believers)
Jesus...never said anything in the Bible. His friends QUOTED him saying him things. To "quote Jesus" from Luke...is to quote Luke...or Matthew, Mark, or John.
In fact, to quote Paul...isn't even to quote Jesus, since Paul never met Jesus while he was alive (believers claim he did after the Crucifixion of course).
As for the OT, certainly not quotes from "God" (Or "Jehovah")..."He" wrote none of it and the original authors were dead by the time the scrolls were compiled by its later "editors", well before Jesus or the Apostles.
So, to reference the Bible is merely to reference other flawed human beings' opinions...no greater or lesser important than any you can reference today.
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 3:50pm
Do you really think a father who is angry at the guy who HE MISTAKENLY THINKS HAS just raped his daughter stops and reflects upon the death penalty when he takes out his rifle and shoots the SOB?
this is just as likely a scenario.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 3:58pm
Posted by MASK 07/11/2007 @ 3:50pm
This seems a little bit extreme. It's not as though things like memory don't exist. Why wouldn't people who lived during the time (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) or people who have talked directly to multiple people living at the time, be considered fairly credible? Given that the people involved can safely be said to not have any credible political agenda or anything like that, and that they were writing within a timeframe where their memories and those of others would still be pretty accurate, why shouldn't their information be considered pretty trustworthy?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 3:58pm
Mask-Your response made absolutely no sense in the slightest considering my posts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2007 @ 4:08pm
Given that the people involved can safely be said to not have any credible political agenda or anything like that, and that they were writing within a timeframe where their memories and those of others would still be pretty accurate, why shouldn't their information be considered pretty trustworthy?
you must be kidding. no political agenda? they are called his disciples. how can I put this kindly? you are an embarrassment with this kind of "reasoning"
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 4:11pm
Slate magazine article by Christopher Hitchens, June 18, 2007
If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?
Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.
Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place. The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak--his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally--was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that). In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count. The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary. The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.
Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/11/2007 @ 4:14pm
there have been many messiahs in history. they had hundreds of thousands of followers and they had disciples. what makes it so certain that this socalled Jesus was THE one?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 4:15pm
they were writing within a timeframe where their memories and those of others would still be pretty accurate, why shouldn't their information be considered pretty trustworthy?
This is the problem with using "very old" writings from thousands of years ago: the world has grown up since that time and recognizes the brutality and lack of humaneness of stoning someone to death!
And how do you think it would make you feel throwing stones at a defenseless person? Would you feel good? Would you feel like you are curing someone of adulterous behavior? Or is it just simple collective vengeance?
Thinking about what you are doing and why you are doing it is the mark of an enlightened society. Blindly following what others did of old reduces you to a part of a mindless lynch mob that could not possibly be viewed as enlightened, even by Jesus.
When Jesus says "love your neighbor as you would love yourself", as part of the "greatest" commandment of God, what do you think this means, and how do you square that with being part of a lynch mob?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2007 @ 4:21pm
there have been many messiahs in history. they had hundreds of thousands of followers and they had disciples. what makes it so certain that this socalled Jesus was THE one?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/11/2007 @ 4:15pm
I'll go ahead and group this with the question about political agendas.
What kind of agenda would the disciples have? Not to increase their political or religious power, that much is clear; to the contrary, defecting to the Jesus movement meant risking death at the hands of political and religious authorities. The only agenda they could then have had as Jesus' followers, people who staked their lives on the vision he espoused, was to spread Jesus' teachings. That's hugely problematic for your position because it means that they would have every incentive to preserve Jesus' teachings as best they could. Those publicly verifiable teachings and their vindication by equally verifiable action are what set Jesus apart.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 5:10pm
they were writing within a timeframe where their memories and those of others would still be pretty accurate, why shouldn't their information be considered pretty trustworthy?
This is the problem with using "very old" writings from thousands of years ago: the world has grown up since that time and recognizes the brutality and lack of humaneness of stoning someone to death!
And how do you think it would make you feel throwing stones at a defenseless person? Would you feel good? Would you feel like you are curing someone of adulterous behavior? Or is it just simple collective vengeance?
Thinking about what you are doing and why you are doing it is the mark of an enlightened society. Blindly following what others did of old reduces you to a part of a mindless lynch mob that could not possibly be viewed as enlightened, even by Jesus.
When Jesus says "love your neighbor as you would love yourself", as part of the "greatest" commandment of God, what do you think this means, and how do you square that with being part of a lynch mob?
Posted by METTEYYA 07/11/2007 @ 4:21pm
Tragically, this isn't responsive to my argument at all. My argument isn't and never has been that all behaviors accepted or even required in ancient times should still be accepted today. Rather, my argument has been that there is every reason to believe that the disciples (and Paul) faithfully communicated Jesus' teachings to future generations, and though I personally tend to think that some of what Paul teaches is not entirely consistent with Jesus' own message, I think that much of its core (particularly the creeds that he passes on from the church) is pretty reliable.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 5:12pm
Sometimes, I just cannot believe what these people say.
"White House spokesman Tony Snow says that Bush deserves credit for passing on a healthy economy and tackling daunting problems -- from Islamic terrorism to Social Security's finances to a broken immigration system.
"'What the president does bequeath to his successor is a much greater sense of some of the challenges of the world,' Snow says."
Furthermore, "Snow counters that Bush inherited serious problems from President Clinton, too, though they may not have been obvious at the time."
Tony, I have to go home and change into my waders after reading that. Seriously, someone place a polygraph on the lectern for the next so-called press conference. Test Mr. Snow. So that everyone can see just how factually challenged he is.
Posted by Rapaport at 07/11/2007 @ 5:13pm
Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 07/11/2007 @ 4:14pm
This seems a bit suspicious, and certainly doesn't seem to be Bush's own assessment. Recall from Bush's statement that he found the jury's verdict completely legitimate and their condemnation of Libby's action perfectly justified. He also had no problem with the fine. I think at that point that it's very difficult to make the argument that Libby was somehow sentenced unfairly. I have to suspect that something is being left out of the Hitchens account, though I realize that isn't a lot to hang a position on.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 5:15pm
to the contrary, defecting to the Jesus movement meant risking death at the hands of political and religious authorities.
this is not true. the early christians experienced no threats from the jewish community they were a part of. they went to the same temples, they shared each other's seders. you are seriously out of touch here.
no political agenda? they made up this whole religion around this guy. this is to laugh.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 5:29pm
Met, you must distinguish between the hebrew bible and the new testament. Jesus, whoever he was, was very clear on stoning. he was absolutely against it. let he who is without sin throw the first stone. that left out everyone there, except perhaps himself. he did not throw any stones. he told the woman, go thy way and sin no more.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 5:31pm
this is not true. the early christians experienced no threats from the jewish community they were a part of. they went to the same temples, they shared each other's seders. you are seriously out of touch here.
no political agenda? they made up this whole religion around this guy. this is to laugh.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/11/2007 @ 5:29pm
Ohhh dear. I think Paul, for many reasons, will serve as an instructive example here. One, before conversion he was a powerful leader in the Jewish community, who acted on orders to have Christians executed. This is a crystal-clear warrant, by itself, for my claim that there was a great deal of hostility toward the Christian community. Two, when Paul converted, he gave up that same power within the community, making it very difficult to suggest that he was trying to somehow increase his political power in some way. Three, Paul himself (along with many other apostles) was later executed by Rome for the beliefs that he espoused. So yes, there was tremendous risk involved, and you've still yet to show any clear political gain; at most, you've shown that their communities didn't hate them less, which definitionally isn't gain.
Moreover, you've still yet to provide any warrant whatsoever for the claim that the disciples just sat around one day and went "you know what we should tell people." In fact, five responses to this. One, basic unified claims about Jesus were already percolating before they wrote their Gospels, so they didn't create the movement on their own. Two, as I've already shown, they had no positive incentive to invent claims out of whole cloth; see, death and torture. Three, the claims that they made about Jesus were verifiable by people who had lived at the time of Jesus' death. Four, nothing in their character indicates that they had any desire to make stuff up, particularly given that their Gospels report things that they aren't proud of. Five, they abandoned much of what they were taught and believed was absolutely crucial for salvation (reliance on covenant and sacrifices, etc.).
Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2007 @ 6:20pm
let's talk archeology for a moment. the earliest gospel writings we have in manuscript form are from the sixth century, though some fragments exist from the third century. none of the gospels were composed in Jerusalem, and they are thought to be written around 70 ad. they cannot be thought of as contemporaneous documents.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 6:23pm
One, before conversion he was a powerful leader in the Jewish community, who acted on orders to have Christians executed.
not exactly. he was a jewish roman, and there is no mention of executing christians. I don't know where you have this from.
" One, basic unified claims about Jesus were already percolating before they wrote their Gospels, "
you are making this up out of whole cloth. there is no evidence of this.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 6:30pm
Posted by New Dawn at 07/11/2007 @ 6:56pm
not exactly. he was a jewish roman, and there is no mention of executing christians. I don't know where you have this from.
there is mention of the stoning of Stephen, which Paul is said to have participated. after that it is mentioned that he had christians arrested. nothing is mentioned of executions.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/11/2007 @ 6:57pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/11/2007 @ 1:41pm
How does God feel about LoveLiberty changing his name and then coming back here to post under false pretenses?
"Hell waits" for you, liar.
:)
Posted by New Dawn at 07/11/2007 @ 7:01pm
On topic -
Some simple, declarative opinions:
The flaws are not with the death penalty (it's actually pretty effective - haven't seen anyone come back from the dead to kill again), but with the system that passes that sentence.
Too many innocent men have been executed over the years.
If there is DNA evidence and a sworn confession, then someone who commits a horrific, premeditated murder (think Polly Klaas) should be permanently removed from this life. There is no reason to keep them alive in perpetuity until they kill another inmate or guard.
In the cases where there is a reasonable doubt, the death penalty should not be applied.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by New Dawn at 07/11/2007 @ 7:07pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/11/2007 @ 3:58pm
It's a matter of "first things", THRAWN.
The FIRST thing that a Judeo-Christian must believe is...not in "God" or "Christ"...but that the MEN who wrote the Bible were honest and ACCURATE. Now two things play against that...1. they were true believers in their "cause" (which could lead to some "fudging" of certain events) and 2. they wrote that stuff some 15-30 years AFTER the Crucifixon (leading to an even less egregious but still considerable probability that they QUOTED Jesus incorrectly).
Take out the "agenda" stuff....could YOU remember what your father (an important figure I'd assume in your life) said 15-30 years ago? Could you accidentially credit him with saying something that your grandfather said...or an uncle...or even a figure from history that HE quoted and you believed your Dad was the originator.
If the Bible cannot be taken as 100% factual...than ANY aspect of it comes into question....including the Resurrection, the linchpin of Christianity.
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 10:26pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/11/2007 @ 4:08pm
I was supporting your proposition that quoting the Bible was useless.
Geez, IM, can't I even AGREE with you and offer a supporting opinion from time to time?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 10:27pm
It's a matter of "first things", THRAWN.
The FIRST thing that a Judeo-Christian must believe is...not in "God" or "Christ"...but that the MEN who wrote the Bible were honest and ACCURATE. Now two things play against that...1. they were true believers in their "cause" (which could lead to some "fudging" of certain events) and 2. they wrote that stuff some 15-30 years AFTER the Crucifixon (leading to an even less egregious but still considerable probability that they QUOTED Jesus incorrectly).
Take out the "agenda" stuff....could YOU remember what your father (an important figure I'd assume in your life) said 15-30 years ago? Could you accidentially credit him with saying something that your grandfather said...or an uncle...or even a figure from history that HE quoted and you believed your Dad was the originator.
If the Bible cannot be taken as 100% factual...than ANY aspect of it comes into question....including the Resurrection, the linchpin of Christianity.
Posted by MASK 07/11/2007 @ 10:26pm
First, your initial premise is untrue. A faith in God is the most fundamental aspect of Christianity, and though it is informed to a large extent by the testimony offered about Jesus, it transcends that testimony.
Second, though, on to the testimony itself.
Your first argument is that they were likely to fudge details because they were true believers in their cause. Why? In many cases, the exact opposite effect occurs. A fantastic example is Holocaust survivors; they are committed to preventing such a thing from ever happening again, and motivated by that deep belief and committment, they make every possible effort to make sure that they get the truth right. There is every reason that the earliest Christians did the same; evidence within the texts themselves indicate that they double- and triple-checked testimony, especially since we get roughly identical pictures between Paul and the Gospels. Even where there are differences, the fundamentals are still intact, and I think that speaks powerfully of their veracity.
Also, this is hardly analogous to remembering things that one's father or grandfather said. The disciples believed that everything they put down was a revelation about the underlying core of the universe itself. Not only that, since the church was teaching Jesus' ideas from the very beginning, there wasn't even the delay you cite. Additionally, the culture in which the disciples lived was much more dedicated to oral memory, as evidenced by things like their cultivated memorization of scriptural texts. There is absolutely no reason to believe that their memory would have faded so as to remove things that were fundamental to who these people were and what they believed were ideals worth preaching and dying for. They remembered, and devoted their lives and their honor to that memory, and their confidence in the loving God they spoke of.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2007 @ 12:35am
It has been noted more than once that when ignorant men comment on things they lack knowledge of, the only result can be best or most politely described as ignorant.
The Historicity of the New Testament documents is far more reliable and of far earlier authenticity than has been charged by those here who doubt their reliability.
For those willing to even entertain the possibility that they are wrong:
The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery
An excerpt from Evidence for Faith Chapter 6, Part 2
How good are these New Testament records? They handsomely fulfill the historian's requirements of transmissional reliability (their texts have been transmitted accurately from the time of writing to our own day), internal reliability (they claim to be primary-source documents and ring true as such), and external reliability (their authorships and dates are backed up by such solid extrinsic testimony as that of the early second-century writer Papias, a student of John the Evangelist, who was told by him that the first three Gospels were indeed written by their traditional authors). Harvard's Simon Greenleaf, the greatest nineteenth-century authority on the law of evidence in the common-law world, applied to these records the "ancient documents" rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are "fair on their face" (i.e., offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in "reasonable custody" (i.e., their preservation has been consistent with their content). He concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
Between Robinson and Thiede other persuasive voices have also challenged the late dating nonsense. Gunther Zuntz, the internationally recognized authority on Hellenistic Greek, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark's composition. Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43. Reicke's "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, 1972, give the years 50-64 A.D. for the composition of Matthew. Eta Linnemann's two works: Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? and Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels provide a piercing debunking of the myths of modern biblical scholarship. What makes her arguments so penetrating is the fact that she studied under Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs.
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in his doctoral dissertation, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, argues persuasively that John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70 A.D. David Chilton in his excellent commentary on the Book of Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, comes to the same conclusion. Dating of the Book of Revelation is important since even most revisionist scholars affirm that it was the last New Testament book written.
The impressive work of Claude Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, confirms Robinson's thesis. He bases his arguments on language and archaeology. He points out, for example, that in John 5:2 that "there is [estin in Greek, not "was"] at Jerusalem, at the sheep gate, a pool named in Hebrew Bethzatha. It has five porticos." This makes no sense if Jerusalem was reduced to a heap of stones 25 or 30 years earlier. (See: Claude Tresmontant, The Hebrew Christ and The Gospel of Matthew.) Father Jean Carmignac of Paris also assigns early composition to the four Gospels. Carmignac, a philologist with exceptional skills in biblical Hebrew, was a noted scholar of the Dead Sea scrolls and the world's most renowned expert on the Our Father. His The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels is a lucid summary of his thesis.
As a result of the persuasive erudition of these and other scholars a shift is occurring away from the blind acceptance of late New Testament authorship. An example of this shift is reflected in Fr. George H. Duggan's fine article in the May 1997 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review titled: "The Dates of the Gospels." By the grace of God may this trend continue!
http://www.totustuus.com/dating.htm
Posted by antiliberal at 07/12/2007 @ 12:36am
Liberal Theologian John A.T. Robinson provides a non-conservative authentication of early dates for the gospels.
Dr John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919 in Canterbury, England–December 5, 1983) was a New Testament scholar, author, and former Anglican bishop of Woolwich, England. He was a lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge and later Dean of Trinity College until his death in 1983 from cancer. Dr Robinson was considered a major force in shaping liberal Christian theology. Along with Harvard theologian Harvey Cox he spearheaded the field of secular theology.
Although Robinson was firmly within the camp of liberal theology, he did challenge the work of colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Dr Robinson examined the New Testament's reliability, because he believed that very little original research had been completed in the field during the period between 1900 and the mid 1970s. Concluding his research, he wrote in his work, Redating the New Testament that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".
Robinson concluded that New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction. C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." [1] Robinson's call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linneman, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard. [2]
In relation to the four gospels dates of authorship, according to Norman Geisler, "Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65." [3] Robinson went on to state that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that John, the apostle, wrote the fourth Gospel. Dr. Robinson believed the result of his investigations argued for the rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament.[4] [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson
Posted by antiliberal at 07/12/2007 @ 12:42am
How does God feel about LoveLiberty changing his name and then coming back here to post under false pretenses?
"Hell waits" for you, liar.
:)
Posted by NEW DAWN 07/11/2007 @ 7:01pm
You mean like having anonymous names on a blog filled with people using anonymous names like "New Dawn" or Antiliberal, or lvliberty? you call that lying? interesting concept; fallacious on it's own merits, but interesting concept.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/12/2007 @ 12:46am
You need to read more carefully before jumping. that response dealt not with the death penalty but a response to JR on God establishing governments.
And your comment about the death penalty always being about vengance is complete nonsense. That merely reflects your own bias and not objective evidence.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/12/2007 @ 12:49am
Throughout your kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail.
Sorry Mr. Anti-Liberal,
The death penalty is not supported by this passage. Accountability AND correction must go hand in hand. If you are only interested in accountability, you exacerbate the problem of lawlessness by not correcting the behavior that created it.
The death penalty has always been about vengeance, and that vengeance is incapable of stopping more murderers.
Posted by METTEYYA 07/11/2007 @ 2:58pm
Sorry, didn't preview to make sure the copy and paste had been inserted.
You need to read more carefully before jumping. that response dealt not with the death penalty but a response to JR on God establishing governments.
And your comment about the death penalty always being about vengance is complete nonsense. That merely reflects your own bias and not objective evidence.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/12/2007 @ 12:49am
Posted by antiliberal at 07/12/2007 @ 12:52am
You mean like having anonymous names on a blog filled with people using anonymous names like "New Dawn" or Antiliberal, or lvliberty? you call that lying? interesting concept; fallacious on it's own merits, but interesting concept.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/12/2007 @ 12:46am
No, what is fallacious is trumpeting how one is going to leave, in a huff, a given political blog board (The Nation, in this example) only to reappear a short while under a new assumed name, spouting the same inanities as the previous incarnation, and trying to convince everyone that you are someone new.
We've always known you were a fraud, Liberty, but you've taken it to new heights. Was LVLiberty2 already taken, or did it just lack imagination for you?
Posted by New Dawn at 07/12/2007 @ 01:25am
And on "the whole God thing".
Supposedly, we are gifted by the supreme being with free will.
Supposedly, the Judeo-Christian God's will surmounts our own, and if we displease him, we will be punished.
Supposedly, he (or He, if you prefer) has already determined (and scheduled an appointment for) a given outcome - the return of his Son in all his glory to sweep away evil and restore the Kingdom of God.
Supposedly, if mankind (as a whole, because God has not hesitated to destroy good people along with bad, to make a point) shapes up and follows the rules (denies its own free will, if you will), then God may relent, show compassion, and not destroy everything.
If we continue along our path of wickedness, however, then hello, holocausts and horsemen.
That is not "free will" to me, and therefore unwinds the "genesis" (to pardon the pun) of the whole position.
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by New Dawn at 07/12/2007 @ 01:33am
Posted by NEW DAWN 07/12/2007 @ 01:33am
Bingo. Love promised under a threat of annihilation is no love at all.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2007 @ 02:09am
The consensus of scholars seems to be that the gospels were written between 60 and 70 ad. there were other gospels at that time, which have been lost. there was also a proto gospel, a book of Jesus' sayings, the socalled Logia. it is believed that the gospels were based on that.
the Josephus passage has been completely discredited as a later interpolation. the roman quotes trotted out referred to christians, but not christ.
I refer you to "The Story of Civilization" part three by Will Durant.I do this in spite of the fact that I do not agree with his conclusion, because he offers a clear narrative, as always. I also direct you to" the archeology of palestine" by W F Albright
that the writers had no agenda is just ludicrous.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 09:34am
Unfortunately, a lot of this isn't responsive at all. Unless, for example, those gospels were demonstrably written by people were in some way close to Jesus or that we could expect to convey trustworthy information about Jeusus, I'm not sure why their exclusion should be so critical. Additionally, you've given no reason to believe that a connection to this "Logia" is somehow bad; in fact, it seems as though it could be good if their memories of their own experiences were corroborated by an earlier source (Paul also qualifies in this department).
If the Josephus passage isn't seen as an interpolation, what is it seen as, precisely? A complete forgery?
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, you have never identified or justified an agenda that the writers could have had that would jeopardize their ability or willingness to convey accurately what Jesus said and did. That's critical, because it means that you have never given any strong reason to doubt their testimony. Nor, and this is perhaps equally important, have you given any reason to doubt Paul's testimony, which, even if the account you just laid out is true, was extremely early.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2007 @ 09:44am
As stated on the other thread, Empty Spence's problem with gays (via his constant use of homophobic remarks as a "put-down") is pretty obvious.
I don't completely hold with the "If you hate gays, you must be one and self-loathing" theory (though it may be true in his case)....he claims to be from Texas "working class" background, so he probably just heard a lot of "qware" (queer) and "fag" epithets thrown around and never thought anything about using it.
Like a good number of "progressives", he's still not completely aware of gay issues or discrimination (hey, I was no better 15 years ago, but atleast have tried to grow)...but he thinks he's "completely okay" with gay rights, when deep down, he still thinks of limp-wristed stereotypes and the use of that negative image being "okay" to fling around at political/personal opponents.
BTW, I'll check with DARLADOON, but I don't think getting hot for lesbians is bigotry....'least I HOPE not!...heheh.
Posted by MASK
The punk can't refute what I say, so he has to go after the words I use to describe his underhanded, cowardly behavior. Branding me "homophobic" or anything else is just his way of obviating the fact that he is a partisan hack with an agenda. He likes to style himself as some sort of independent, unbiased, and so on, but he is anything but. He is a fraud, a phoney.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/12/2007 @ 10:01am
Thrawn, you're not reading so good.
Unless, for example, those gospels were demonstrably written by people were in some way close to Jesus or that we could expect to convey trustworthy information about Jeusus, I'm not sure why their exclusion should be so critical. Additionally, you've given no reason to believe that a connection to this "Logia" is somehow bad;
the gospels were written by people who were in some way close to Jesus. I said nothing about the Logia being bad at all. you're getting shoddier all the time.
I stated that the josephus quote is a later interpolation. period.but yes, it could therefor be described as a forgery.
what agenda? to found a sect or a religion. they were his disciples for heaven's sake. by definition they have a vested interest. there is also evidence that they fabricated incidents, to conform with old testament prophecies. many of Paul's letters too have been discredited, though by no means all. he also had an agenda.
the fact remains, there is no independent verification of a historical Jesus.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 10:08am
It seems as though we're going in circles. You appear to have conceded, thankfully, that whatever interest they had wasn't what we would consider "earthly"; they weren't after money, political power, etc. I think their interest, though, is slightly narrower than the one you describe. They weren't aiming at founding a religion for the sake of founding a religion. To the extent that they worked to create a religious community, it was so that they could communicate and reflect the teachings of the one that they followed.
Remember also that they committed their lives to this endeavour, in at least two key ways. First, they rejected beliefs that had been fundamental to them since childhood, and fundamental to the culture in which they grew up. Among other ideas, they rejected the notion that an individual had to sacrifice for their sins, that God could never take human form, and that obedience to the law was the key to salvation. Second, they quite literally risked their lives to preach this countervailing message; you've already conceded that apostles risked being arrested for speaking out, and certainly risked being executed (for which Paul and Stephen, among others, serve as perfect examples). Given these two things, you have a pretty substantial burden to show that these people were willing to give up all of this for a belief they knew to be a lie. I've already given numerous reasons to show that it couldn't just be poor memory or something like that that made them think "hey, there was this Jesus guy, wasn't there?" If they talked about Jesus, he either existed or they were blatantly lying, and you've never come even close to establishing them as liars who were somehow willing to die for a belief they knew to be a lie. Precisely what incidents did they fabricate?
But what about other sources? You're right, for example, that some people wrote letters in Paul's name, and those are rightly scrutinized heavily. However, a number of letters have been decisively shown to be authentically Pauline, and those letters also contain all of the crucial nuggets of Christian historical and theological claims. Since it's obviously laughable to suggest that he had some kind of political agenda (he had the apex of power, and he gave it up), his agenda would be the same as that of the disciples: to accurately preserve and pass on the teachings of Jesus. That makes him more reliable, not less, something you've never responded to.
Briefly on Josephus; interpolation =/= forgery. That which was not interpolated into the passage, including some mentions of Jesus as a real person, is definitionally not a forgery, hence Josephus still provides independent verification of Jesus. By the way, if you're right about this Logia source...that's another independent verification for Jesus, and helps me out even more since it's supposedly earlier than the disciples!
I've given you at least three independent sources for the Jesus narrative, none of which has been shown to be untrustworthy or generally unreliable. To the extent that they had an agenda, it was one that depended on them relaying accurate information to the greatest extent possible, making their accounts all the more reliable.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2007 @ 11:58am
muddlehead. Paul and all the disciples are not independent sources. they had an agenda, we call it christianity.end of story.
the Josephus quote is one that was inserted later. that leaves that out.
the Logia has not survived, only fragments point to its existence. author unknown. again it cannot be a verification.
you have shown not one independent citation.
I do not believe that the disciples made up the Jesus story out of whole cloth. I do believe they embellished, perhaps conflated several people into one. who knows?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 12:06pm
muddleheaded not muddlehead. I have no personal insult or invective towards you. just your argument. the supposedly independent sources have been disposed of. that leaves the members of the church.
look at mormonism. evidently they believe that christ, in between death and resurrection travelled to the new world and conferred with the natives. this is their doctrine, evidently. did they have an agenda that would lead them to make these absurd claims? obviously yes.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 12:09pm
To the extent that they had an agenda, it was one that depended on them relaying accurate information to the greatest extent possible, making their accounts all the more reliable.
this is known as circular reasoning.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 12:10pm
I think we have both laid out our case. I see no reason to continue much further, though I am glad to read your posts at any time, on this or any other subject. I will close with a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1961
...almost everything we know about the historical person comes from reports of those who addressed faith and worship to Him. The portraits of Jesus in the gospels are the testimony of "faith to faith". It is therefore impossible to write a biography of Jesus in the conventional sense of the word.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 1:11pm
game, set and match
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 5:05pm
Haha I understand that you didn't intend any kind of invective. I've always appreciated that though we disagree on many issues, there has always been some level of respectful dialogue. To be quite frank, on this particular issue, your responses just don't seem compelling.
What you've never dealt with to any adequate degree is the the clash on what it means to have an agenda. Literally, the only thing an agenda means is that you have some goal that your efforts are designed towards fulfilling. The question we then have to ask is not simply "did they have an agenda?", but rather "what was their agenda?" You'ver never once shown that the agenda they had (spreading the teachings of Jesus) would give them even the slightest incentive to distort his message; indeed, I've pointed out that they even stayed true to his message and the historical narrative when it potrayed the disciples in unfavorable ways. In response to all this, to simply echo the refrain "but...they had an agenda!" is nowhere near good enough. Whatever agenda they had supports my position.
As for Josephus, only parts of the quote were inserted later; I've already pointed out that some parts of the quote that referred to Jesus were there from the beginning; it was not entirely an interpolation, just the parts that blatantly affirmed his deity.
At this point, you're clearly losing the sources debate. I'm winning Josephus reasonably clearly because it wasn't purely interpolation, which would also beat your "multiple people" theory. I'm winning the disciples as evidence because they were both close enough to the events to record them accurately and devoted enough to record them faithfully. I'm winning Paul who is verifiable not merely because of his own early reaffirmation of what the disciples preached, but also because of his drawing on incredibly early sources from the whole early church itself. Any one of these is sufficient because their earliness subjects them to easy scrutiny by those living at Jesus' time, and it never came. His miracles were dismissed as the work of the devil, but never denied. There's no way a quote from Britannica beats all of that.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2007 @ 5:58pm
the quote demolishes the lack of an agenda issue. the Josephus quote is not likely, as he was a jew who would have been unlikely to say anything positive about a renegade sect. now, what else have you got?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 6:18pm
does it not strike you as odd that not one record during Jesus' lifetime exists? the gospels were written 40 years after his death, but nothing contemporaneous. with all those miracles and the large following, nothing.
actually, this is, of course, an academic argument, one made by many many scholars far superior to you and I. the influence is so great, that it doesn't much matter. the Britannica article is very fine, as is the Will Durant. I was being facetious, there are really no winners or losers in this kind of argument.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 6:39pm
Jesus who?
Posted by Malcontent at 07/12/2007 @ 9:06pm
most amusing, Mal.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/12/2007 @ 9:45pm