|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 18, 2016 14:28:46 GMT -5
I can actually forgive him for being an awful singer (don't know if Stevie Wonder could, though), because he actually admits that he is. Much more forgivable than the other garbage that comes out of his mouth. Yes, but couldn't he have done that to say, Slim Whitman or Jack Jones? You're right, I also would've rather he'd ruined a song I didn't like. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 18, 2016 15:12:41 GMT -5
This squares with what I have read and heard. Why/how did you have occasion to speak with him? Once at a lecture at Harvard(I got in with my friend who went there) and the second time at my own school as my Ethics Professor had been friends with him since attending Xavier High School together. The second meeting was much more intimate as there were only twenty other students, but both were interesting lectures. I'm the last to say the man was a saint, but I do think he was a rational person which counts for a lot. As for the position on ruling on death penalty cases, yes it's cold and it makes me shudder as a person but at the same time when such cases get to the Supreme Court he's absolutely right; the question isn't is the defendant innocent or guilty but rather did the state conduct his trial justly. That's simply all the Supreme Court looks at when appeals reach them, not innocence or guilt, that's for the lower courts to decide, but rather how justice was carried out; was the defendant provided a lawyer, were his rights respected while being arrested and held before trial, were the instructions to the jury clear ect. It's cold yes, but that's the job. ... I htought republicans were against mutants?... I can understand the rationale behind your defense, I certainly can. But, i've just watched Making A muderer twice and read all the oposition I could find against it, which just made me find out about other cases in the USA with similar mishaps, and its obvious that the system has alowed too many times rullings in favor of fair trials when this was spectacularly not the case, which cast a huge shadow on the reliability of the system. And if the system isn't reliable, the position in favor of death penalty just can't hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 18, 2016 16:20:22 GMT -5
When I saw this I thought it was probably about providing meals in accordance with service members religious guidelines. Which is something that should be accommodated.
Then I read the article and found out he was talking about gluten-free meals for service members with celiac disease. Just when I thought my opinion of him couldn't go lower, he found a way to prove me wrong.
I hear both sides are just as bad but I'm trying to figure out what the liberal equivalent of this is. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 18, 2016 16:22:37 GMT -5
When I saw this I thought it was probably about providing meals in accordance with service members religious guidelines. Which is something that should be accommodated.
Then I read the article and found out he was talking about gluten-free meals for service members with celiac disease. Just when I thought my opinion of him couldn't go lower, he found a way to prove me wrong.
I hear both sides are just as bad but I'm trying to figure out what the liberal equivalent of this is. Supplying only gluten-free meals. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 18, 2016 16:36:59 GMT -5
I hear both sides are just as bad but I'm trying to figure out what the liberal equivalent of this is. Supplying only gluten-free meals. Vegetarian, gluten-free meals blessed by Satan! |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 18, 2016 18:01:09 GMT -5
Once at a lecture at Harvard(I got in with my friend who went there) and the second time at my own school as my Ethics Professor had been friends with him since attending Xavier High School together. The second meeting was much more intimate as there were only twenty other students, but both were interesting lectures. I'm the last to say the man was a saint, but I do think he was a rational person which counts for a lot. As for the position on ruling on death penalty cases, yes it's cold and it makes me shudder as a person but at the same time when such cases get to the Supreme Court he's absolutely right; the question isn't is the defendant innocent or guilty but rather did the state conduct his trial justly. That's simply all the Supreme Court looks at when appeals reach them, not innocence or guilt, that's for the lower courts to decide, but rather how justice was carried out; was the defendant provided a lawyer, were his rights respected while being arrested and held before trial, were the instructions to the jury clear ect. It's cold yes, but that's the job. ... I htought republicans were against mutants?... I can understand the rationale behind your defense, I certainly can. But, i've just watched Making A muderer twice and read all the oposition I could find against it, which just made me find out about other cases in the USA with similar mishaps, and its obvious that the system has alowed too many times rullings in favor of fair trials when this was spectacularly not the case, which cast a huge shadow on the reliability of the system. And if the system isn't reliable, the position in favor of death penalty just can't hold. There are certainly times when there are gross miscarriages of justice, and I'm often frustrated by that but at the same time there are also so many other times when it is fair and just. It would be great if we could somehow create a perfect system where we got the correct ruling every single time, but I'm not sure we ever shall because at the end of the day the system is going to be worked by human beings and that means there are going to be times when flawed judgment and biases(both intentional and unintentional) prevent the system from working to its fullest even with the built in redundancies to prevent just that from happening. It can feel unfair, but ultimately the system we have does serve the greatest amount of good for pretty significant amount of people. That isn't to say there isn't room for improvement, the disproportionate sentences both in number overall and in length of sentence among racial lines is a horrible black mark on the way things are currently and that's something that really has to be addressed post haste. I also think that like the President there should be term limits for all Judges, even at the supreme court level, as I find that as people age and become comfortable in their positions their views start to calcify and become stagnant when they should be subject to change with the times and flexible with different circumstances. That isn't to say this happens to all judges as they age but it seems to be the case with enough that life long terms seem to be detriment over all. Overall I think the same should be true of all politicians as well, there should be no such thing as a career politician as that would tend to cause greed for power and motivate their votes more by fear of losing their power rather than doing what's right which would be alleviated if the positions were more akin to true civil service like being selected for jury duty. I don't think either of those things are likely to ever happen but a guy can hope. On a side note, I'm glad you're back! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 19:15:20 GMT -5
When I saw this I thought it was probably about providing meals in accordance with service members religious guidelines. Which is something that should be accommodated.
Then I read the article and found out he was talking about gluten-free meals for service members with celiac disease. Just when I thought my opinion of him couldn't go lower, he found a way to prove me wrong.
I hear both sides are just as bad but I'm trying to figure out what the liberal equivalent of this is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 18, 2016 19:25:19 GMT -5
You said it : career politicians. All of my professional life in the public sector, I've been campaining against tha very notion, a falcious one if there is any! This really is where politics truly can become evil, hammering that notion on and on in the medias so that people grew to believe in its authenticity and not even question it anymore, especially n coruption cases. How many times have we ssen convicted corrupt politicians come back seeking mandates after heir sentance, and some people (if not many) voting for them because they feel it is their place in society : being politicians... While I worked wth politics and heralded that idea, I was often countered with the idea that qualified "elites" aren't unlimited, and that sometimes, you gotta accept some bad because of all the good. I don't suscribe to that and find that pattern of htough lazy and corrupt. I understand it, but where some see pragmatism, I only see engineered crushing of idealism.
I keep hearing that Bernie Saunders is an idealist in the medias, but when did humanity cease to need idealism to trigger the best of itself?
The death penalty is the opposite of idealism, and the sole admitance of the possibility of the system to be corrupted corrupts the foundations of that system, deeply. The incarcerated "convicts" presented in the "Making Of Murderer" show might be criminals, but they can't be anything else but victims of the corruption of the US legal system. No system is perfect, but that one really takes the cake, and someone defending its most questionable aspects is difficult to respect.
Now I read most conservative medias attacking Obama on his non attendance to Scalia's funeral. As I don't really believe that this is related to the fact that those two were philosophical ennemies but just an impractality and a lack of presidential prerogative reasons, I kind of enjoy how those debates and this death really show where the line is now drawn, htat everyone show their true colors (except maybe for Hilary Clinton).
Anyways, It's funny to think the X-Men were a metaphor for the civil rights movement and its struggles, and now that the USA got a black president, he could be the one shifting the balance so that no Sentinel program could be initiated.
Basically, the whole US political life increasingly sounds like a Mark Millar comic.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 18, 2016 19:56:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I really dislike the argument that President Obama not attending Scalia's funeral is a political diss against Scalia's memory or the right in general. A funeral should be about the deceased, and anything that could take away from that is a serious negative and in my mind if the President were to attend all eyes would be on him and his reactions which would be a big distraction so it's a much better move to send a proxy to the event itself while paying respects separately at the court itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 19, 2016 9:51:56 GMT -5
You said it : career politicians. All of my professional life in the public sector, I've been campaining against tha very notion, a falcious one if there is any! This really is where politics truly can become evil, hammering that notion on and on in the medias so that people grew to believe in its authenticity and not even question it anymore, especially n coruption cases. How many times have we ssen convicted corrupt politicians come back seeking mandates after heir sentance, and some people (if not many) voting for them because they feel it is their place in society : being politicians... While I worked wth politics and heralded that idea, I was often countered with the idea that qualified "elites" aren't unlimited, and that sometimes, you gotta accept some bad because of all the good. I don't suscribe to that and find that pattern of htough lazy and corrupt. I understand it, but where some see pragmatism, I only see engineered crushing of idealism. I keep hearing that Bernie Saunders is an idealist in the medias, but when did humanity cease to need idealism to trigger the best of itself? The death penalty is the opposite of idealism, and the sole admitance of the possibility of the system to be corrupted corrupts the foundations of that system, deeply. The incarcerated "convicts" presented in the "Making Of Murderer" show might be criminals, but they can't be anything else but victims of the corruption of the US legal system. No system is perfect, but that one really takes the cake, and someone defending its most questionable aspects is difficult to respect. Now I read most conservative medias attacking Obama on his non attendance to Scalia's funeral. As I don't really believe that this is related to the fact that those two were philosophical ennemies but just an impractality and a lack of presidential prerogative reasons, I kind of enjoy how those debates and this death really show where the line is now drawn, htat everyone show their true colors (except maybe for Hilary Clinton). Anyways, It's funny to think the X-Men were a metaphor for the civil rights movement and its struggles, and now that the USA got a black president, he could be the one shifting the balance so that no Sentinel program could be initiated. Basically, the whole US political life increasingly sounds like a Mark Millar comic. Two points I would like to make in regards to the "Making a Murderer" TV show:
1> It's a TV show. And great deal of evidence is left out. Judgments on guilt and innocence shouldn't be made on the basis of, what is at heart, entertainment.
2> The US state of Wisconsin, where these men were convicted, doesn't have the death penalty, so inclusion of this case in a death penalty discussion is invalid. Discussions of wrongful convictions are, of course, directly relevant since one of the few things everyone agrees with is that Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted and spent 18 years in prison before the case they feature on this show.
Wrongful convictions, which are far too common, are just one reason why I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty. People here frequently complain about how long it takes to execute someone, but it's vitally important that every chance to confirm guilt or innocence is taken before the sentence is carried out. You can't take it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 10:25:50 GMT -5
Two points I would like to make in regards to the "Making a Murderer" TV show:
1> It's a TV show. And great deal of evidence is left out. Judgments on guilt and innocence shouldn't be made on the basis of, what is at heart, entertainment.
2> The US state of Wisconsin, where these men were convicted, doesn't have the death penalty, so inclusion of this case in a death penalty discussion is invalid. Discussions of wrongful convictions are, of course, directly relevant since one of the few things everyone agrees with is that Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted and spent 18 years in prison before the case they feature on this show.
Wrongful convictions, which are far too common, are just one reason why I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty. People here frequently complain about how long it takes to execute someone, but it's vitally important that every chance to confirm guilt or innocence is taken before the sentence is carried out. You can't take it back.
You really think that Steven Avery got a fair trial? Got subsequant fair appeal hearings? That Brendan Avery got the same? If not, don't you think that that could very easily happen in a state where the death penalty is still applied? That was my argument. And you can think the series is leaning towards one side, but the reality of prosecution did more than that as well, with dramatic consequences. As neither are pure entertainement, it's really not fair to call that documentary series entertainement at heart. The conspiration of Brendan's lawyer is a fact, the scare tactics of the detectives on a mentally challenged kid are a fact, and the series doesn't comment it, it just shows the videos. If you consider that the fact that the series omited some elements from the prosecution disqualifies it as a documentary one, don't you feel that the fact that all key evidence found on SOC were done so by officials specifically forbidden to be there disqualifies the whole process as "law"? As I said in another topic, I don't know if Steven Avery is guilty, but no one has been able to prove it, he's only been convicted of it, and this in huge part based on a catastrophic series of legal mishaps. Without this series, apart from his family, some hillbillies and his lawyers, history would only remember one side of the story, the official one. Imagine having in your custody such a child as Brendan and living in a state with the death penalty, a state where the elite has deemed your kind as scum which should be eradicated in a eugenic way. I don't think I would feel safe at all. The purpose of the series isn't to prove that hte Avery's are innocent or not but to show the level of corruption the legal system is capable of. As Steven Avery's lawyer said late in the series, I hope he is guilty, because if he isn't - which no one has been able to prove - the world is a horrible place. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 19, 2016 10:50:52 GMT -5
Two points I would like to make in regards to the "Making a Murderer" TV show:
1> It's a TV show. And great deal of evidence is left out. Judgments on guilt and innocence shouldn't be made on the basis of, what is at heart, entertainment.
2> The US state of Wisconsin, where these men were convicted, doesn't have the death penalty, so inclusion of this case in a death penalty discussion is invalid. Discussions of wrongful convictions are, of course, directly relevant since one of the few things everyone agrees with is that Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted and spent 18 years in prison before the case they feature on this show.
Wrongful convictions, which are far too common, are just one reason why I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty. People here frequently complain about how long it takes to execute someone, but it's vitally important that every chance to confirm guilt or innocence is taken before the sentence is carried out. You can't take it back.
You really think that Steven Avery got a fair trial? Got subsequant fair appeal hearings? That Brendan Avery got the same? If not, don't you think that that could very easily happen in a state where the death penalty is still applied? That was my argument. And you can think the series is leaning towards one side, but the reality of prosecution did more than that as well, with dramatic consequences. As neither are pure entertainement, it's really not fair to call that documentary series entertainement at heart. The conspiration of Brendan's lawyer is a fact, the scare tactics of the detectives on a mentally challenged kid are a fact, and the series doesn't comment it, it just shows the videos. If you consider that the fact that the series omited some elements from the prosecution disqualifies it as a documentary one, don't you feel that the fact that all key evidence found on SOC were done so by officials specifically forbidden to be there disqualifies the whole process as "law"? As I said in another topic, I don't know if Steven Avery is guilty, but no one has been able to prove it, he's only been convicted of it, and this in huge part based on a catastrophic series of legal mishaps. Without this series, apart from his family, some hillbillies and his lawyers, history would only remember one side of the story, the official one. Imagine having in your custody such a child as Brendan and living in a state with the death penalty, a state where the elite has deemed your kind as scum which should be eradicated in a eugenic way. I don't think I would feel safe at all. The purpose of the series isn't to prove that hte Avery's are innocent or not but to show the level of corruption the legal system is capable of. As Steven Avery's lawyer said late in the series, I hope he is guilty, because if he isn't - which no one has been able to prove - the world is a horrible place. I didn't comment on if they got fair trials or not, or even if they were guilty or not. I merely stated that guilt or innocence should not be decided based on TV.
Whether it's considered a documentary or not is up to judgment. I can't comment in detail, having not seen it, but the amount of detail that was reportedly omitted is troubling. I lived through the trial and journalistic coverage at the time, and since, and will make my judgments based on that.
But since this is a political thread, looks like Cruz has more birther trouble. A lawyer in Illinois has filed suit for the courts to determine what is the definition of "natural born citizen".
Natural Born Cruz?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 11:00:37 GMT -5
this is a fantastic answer, and I hope she starts gaining some ground.
She's INCREDIBLY qualified for this, and deserves the nomination!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 12:10:07 GMT -5
I didn't comment on if they got fair trials or not, or even if they were guilty or not. I merely stated that guilt or innocence should not be decided based on TV.
Whether it's considered a documentary or not is up to judgment. I can't comment in detail, having not seen it, but the amount of detail that was reportedly omitted is troubling. I lived through the trial and journalistic coverage at the time, and since, and will make my judgments based on that. No yuo didn't comment on that but twice you made a statement about the series, which is whay I asked for your opinion in specific questions  So do you feel these people got a fair trial etc? From my investigation of the case details outside the documentary, the ones kind of omited aren't proofs but have more to do with Steven's Avery old record. You should watch the series as it is really interesting work : the directors never take personnal part in the storytelling, only either use existing official recordings or let the people speak freely on camera, never asking questions therefore never giving their own personnal opinion, they kept the required distance, much more so than anyone from the prosecution part. If it got accused of omitting certain details, it certainly brought new ones never brought up by that trial and journalistic coverage, either then or since. Moreover, it would be really interesting to have someone like you who followed that coverage and was a local, getting that amount of info that wasn't covered previously, because you'd more than anyone of us here could see where all of this new info fits in the global historical narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 12:20:12 GMT -5
this is a fantastic answer, and I hope she starts gaining some ground. She's INCREDIBLY qualified for this, and deserves the nomination! You're probably right on all accounts, but if she deserves the nomination, I could say that so does Sanders, but I'd rather say that in the state it is in, the USA deserve Sanders, it's long overdue, something different was at least experimented, because almost everything else sold as the sure thing has horribly failed the citizens. Is Cinton worthy? Probably. Is she the best? Hopefully not, because that would be a depressing thought. |
|
