Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

April 4, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I have ambivalent attitudes toward restoration of civil rights for convicted felons. The core problem for me is that we have debased the definition of “felony,” by adding in all sorts of meaningless victimless crimes, e.g., selling drugs. If we reserved the felony designation for crimes where blood is spilled, or where property is converted without compensation, I would have no sympathy for the disenfranchised criminal.

A second factor is wimpish sentencing for serious and violent crimes. If felonies removed the felon from society for a period long enough to ensure no recidivism, I would deem the punishment alone sufficient without the “notorious” designation. Most of the time, due to prison overcrowding, the criminal justice system does little more than ensure profitability for probation service companies. Have you ever wondered who owned those companies?

Some of our sober friends on the left assert that by declaring harmless behavior “notorious,” we are able to effectively disenfranchise large numbers of otherwise decent and productive citizens. I think there is a core truth to that argument, but I also think it is oversold – most of these “citizens” are neither decent nor productive.

Perhaps a better course than “automatic” restoration of rights would be a statutory course of “ticket punches” – proof of paying taxes of $1,000 or more for five consecutive years, or maybe honorable service in the military after prison.

By For the Record

April 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

No surprise there, Mr. Wooten. After all, restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time would be an act of Christian forgiveness for those who are trying to reintegrate themselves into society — and surely there is no room for that in Republican politics.

Besides, if you keep the prohibition against felons’ right to vote, your side can steal more elections by incorrectly disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters, like you did in Florida in 2000.

By Mid-South Philosopher

April 4, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Georgia has a felon in office. His name is Sonny Perdue.

By Mid-South Philosopher

April 4, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Good morning all.

Georgia has a felon in office. His name is Sonny Perdue.

By Dennis

April 4, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten states that Florida leads Georgia “in pushing cutting-edge legislation — school vouchers, for example.”

His obsession of this is a prime example of rightwing conservativism - ignore the evidence, it’s “what we believe” that counts.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Peyton Walters

April 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Oh Jim’s ignant awright. Pull his string and he says “school vouchers,” “school vouchers,” and then he poops his pants.

By Curious Observer

April 4, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

The same Christian fundamentalists who speak of divine forgiveness for their sins often refuse to forgive a felon for his and would willingly condemn that felon to a lifetime of denied voting rights.

If a felon has served his sentence, paid his fine, and met all conditions of probation, including any mandated restitution, there is no legitimate reason for continuing to deny him voting rights. Of course, the reason that some states continue to deny the felon voting rights thereafter is the desire to impose a lifetime of punishment.

Of course, a convicted felon, who is most likely to be black and poor, is unlikely to be supportive of the established party in power in his state. And that really scares Republicans. It’s much more comforting to keep him off the voting rolls permanently.

By harold

April 4, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

if you are worried about felony convictions you must think pretty highly of those activist judges. they are the ones who dish out the convictions.

now isnt cocaine use a felony?

By harold

April 4, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

but seriously, any and all impediments to voting must be removed.

if a convicted felon is not allowed to vote, then surely those in charge if they deem it beneficial will lower the standard of “felon” such that the first offence of driving without insurance or having a busted tail light or jaywalking or public drunk makes you a felon.

By harold

April 4, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

isn’t cocaine a felony?

By jbmlaw

April 4, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Dear ftr @ 8:49, while I have outlined my arguments partially in support of your perspective, you would surely grant legitimacy to the republican perspective that those with an evil heart should not play a participatory role in shaping our public policies?

Similarly, Curious @ 9:14, is the corollary to your argument that the truly dangerous and/or the unrepentant should remain locked away with no possibility of freedom, that pardon and parole should be rare?

By getalife

April 4, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Give them amnesty like Iran gave the British troops or w, the illegal immigrants.

Lets face it, we are no longer a nation of laws and our leadership are criminals.

Our Juctice Dept is part of the hate party that will not prosecute pot smugglars unless they are caught with more than 500 pounds.

By Captain Freedom

April 4, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw writes: “you would surely grant legitimacy to the republican perspective that those with an evil heart should not play a participatory role in shaping our public policies?”

Why would you deny Dick Cheney the right to serve?

By Van

April 4, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

My main problem with the automatic restoration of voting and other rights for released felons, is recidivism. Too often the newly released are tempted to return to a life of crime, if for no other reason, that is all they know.

Perhaps a period of time should pass before the rights are restored. If they can stay on the straight and narrow for a year, they can petition for their rights to be restored.

BTW, which rights beside voting rights are we talking about?

By harold

April 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Oh wait, they already lowered the bar for becoming a “felong” by making common crimes felonies. that was their War on Drugs, which Harold supposes could more accurately be termed the War on Lower Income Bracket Voting

Considering their success rate of ZERO, when are we going to stop letting Republicans start wars? Can’t we strip them of that power?

By ron

April 4, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Being denied the right to vote,to serve on juries,and to hold public office isn’t anything I’d worry about.

By harold

April 4, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

this is all pure silliness anyway. it doesnt truly matter for shyte if felons can vote or not. they already dont vote before their conviction. you think they give a damn about voting or politicians? not hardly.

1 million new voters could be made eligible for the rolls, but 0 new voters would show up and vote

By DebbieDoRight

April 4, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Good one Cpt. Freedom!!!

Unusually I find myself agreeing with jbmlaw, (it must be the weather); as with anything, a convicted felon should have a period of time, (say a year after he/she is released permanantly from probation or parole), to prove that they are indeed becoming productive citizens of society. When the year commences, they can apply for reinstatement of their rights. The process should be painless and the least paper work innundated.

This way the ones who really want to regain their rights can go through the system and get them returned, not just an automatic by.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

freaking hilarious … crackpipe’s blatant self interest in favour of felons voting … LMFAO!!

just like turkeys voting against christmas and Assachussetts queers voting for queer marriage. obviously crackpipe wants to eventually be allowed to vote … legally!!

By getalife

April 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Lets see.

Convicted felons can’t vote for criminals, can’t serve on a jury to prosecute criminals or run for office to become a criminal.

Its a win, win, win.

Geez.

By Van

April 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Of course, we would have to implement a system, where after the second conviction, no path to regaining their rights and after the third felony conviction, the “poor” oppressed criminal, never sees the light of day again.

BTW, one of the rights they lose is the right to keep and bear arms. Depending on the crime, we may want to re-think restoring this right.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

at least the vile leftist wanker ron is pretty phlegmatic about its long standing felon status!!

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

great to see the feckpig (come on anal obsessive stalker … slither out again …) maggotbrain @ 10.51 actually understands why it can’t vote or run for office!! was that felony fraudster use of Katrina victims taxpayer funds for your full frontal lobotomy worth it maggotbrain?

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

OK (slither, slither, slither) happy now sicko commie punk?

By DebbieDoRight

April 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Sniff, sniff, anyone smell that? It smells like rotted teeth in a rotted mouth spewing out rotten, vile, bull$sh!t! Must be time to take out the trash. Sybill, one word, DENTIST.

By Peyton Walters

April 4, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

She doo smell bad, don’t she. Pee-yoo!

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Good morning all,

I for one am a supporter of automatic restoration. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it should actually be considered paid.

My first instinct when I see a conservative is opposing restoration of voting rights is to assume they fear what would happen when a large voting bloc (of likely non-conservatives) is introduced into the voting pool. As blacks and latinos are disproportionately represented in our nation’s prison system (another issue for another day), I can only imagine (or dream) how that would affect Georgia politics.

Interesting point about encouraging positive behavior, Jim. Maybe we should give married folks an extra vote. Just kidding.

One of the reasons for recidivism is that a convict never really gets out of the system. Their record more or less permanently disenfranchises them to at least some extent.

Whether it takes the form of not being allowed to vote, attend certain schools, or work at anything above menial labor, their record follows and destroys any chance at achieving what most on here would consider a “normal” life.

I join jbmlaw’s view that the term “felony” has become so diluted as to be virtually without meaning. Does the 18 year old selling pot on a street corner present the same danger to society as a serial child molester (or worse)? Probably not.

I believe that in addition to restoration of voting privileges, those who commit “minor” felonies (those where no weapon was used, and no person was harmed by the suspect) should have their records sealed upon leaving prison. That way, the teenager who makes a stupid mistake as a child won’t be wearing a scarlet letter for the remainder of his life.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Sniff, sniff, anyone smell that? It smells like rotted teeth in a rotted mouth spewing out rotten, vile, bull$sh!t!

wow … the resident black racist crackpipe is now projecting its deep familial shame about its p!ss poor personal hygeine!!

never mind crackpipe … U can always stand in … my bad - kneel down - for Ms. TubofLard Blewinsky and get sick willie klinton to polish your dingy wooden false teeth for ya!!

By getalife

April 4, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Katrina and the truth:

“On “victory” in Iraq: And what is a victory? There’s no enemy that we know. There’s no flag, there’s no country. We don’t know what the enemy looks like. If the enemy tomorrow says, “I surrender,” where do we go to get the paper signed?

On his love for his Harlem constituency: My district is a gorgeous mosaic of all colors and cultures and languages.

On Hurricane Katrina and poverty: Seeing people dying in chairs in their yards and the bodies not being removed … I mean, in America – people calling them refugees, Americans that had fought and died for this country, that is such a sub-human way to talk about them. I said, maybe this will wake up America. Unfortunately, it did not.

On the Iraq war: Ever since the Civil War you cannot find a more serious fault in terms of judgment in the history of the United States. This is one of the worst foreign policy decisions that any president has ever made.

On the silence of religious leaders regarding the war: The thing that bothers me is the silence of our churches, our synagogues, our priests, our ministers, our rabbis. It just feels to me that it’s not just the country that’s losing our values by having other people’s children fight and die in these wars, but there’s hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims in these areas. Even though they have serious religious conflicts, their lives are being taken too. There’s no outrage.

On America losing faith in Bush: There is nothing – nothing – that this president and his party can possibly do to restore confidence in the executive branch of government.”

Charles Rangel is not lying and ask the candidates how they plan on starting to restore confidence in the executive branch?

By deegee

April 4, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

“The state should punish behaviors that are harmful to society — and crime certainly is — while rewarding those that are desirable, like marriage.”

I am assuming that JW is not referring to gay marriage. Here is another example of how conservative republicans want the state to leave us alone but on the other hand “reward” good conservative behavior. How does the state reward marriage? Send newleyweds to Bermuda for their honeymoon? Free pre-marital blood tests? What is the state reward for marriage? It certainly isn’t rewarded in the tax code.

By Lord Dumb

April 4, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

there’s no scouring grit in klinton’s emissions, unlike your own, time to pass gas.

By harold

April 4, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

the ‘enemy’ in iraq can safely be declared as every iraqi man woman and child. keep on killing the ones who are out there defending their country against imperialist aggression and new ones, their cousins etc, sprout. kill them and others sprout. you must either exterminate everyone there (victory) or get the hell out (cut and run).

By Redneck Convert

April 4, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Well, if they would just use my plan to use the death penalty on anyone that gets arrested, they wouldn’t have to worry about voting rights for felons. They would all be dead. Course, that wouldn’t stop the libruls from signing them up to vote. And it would take care of a lot of Those People. They do almost all the crimes.

So send your money to Committee to Elect Redneck Convert for President, c/o Simpsons Trailer Park, Dawsonville, GA. Thanking you for your support.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

poor old Lord please kill this Dumb leftist dog Turd

its ultra low motility stagnant sperm count is even lower than the bloated fat obese mouthy unhinged diike Tokyo Rosie O’Dumbell’s single digit IQ

huge GFY smirk

By deegee

April 4, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

I just thought of one example of the state reward for marriage - a green card.

By harodl

April 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

the state reward for marriage is alimoney

By Captain Freedom

April 4, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

I thought alimony was the (ex) wife’s reward for getting divorced.

By Van

April 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

harold,

Actually the enemy in Iraq is not the Iraqi’s per se. The enemy is the outside forces trying to destabilize the emerging government.

Shiite’s and Sunni’s do and have lived together in peace. Without an outside force, mainly the Iranians or the radical Shiites from Iran, a quicker victory might be achievable.

But then again, you know this and still mouth the left’s talking points - empty prattle.

By deegee

April 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Right, Cap’n Freedom. Now that we are in the year 2007 an ex-husband as well as an ex-wife can get alimony. That is the state reward for getting a legal marriage and a legal divorce. It’s not available to those living in sin.

By oh yeah

April 4, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Rep. Rangel sure is the comedian, isn’t he? The folks who died in their lawn chairs after Katrina were all military vets! No wonder there was all that shooting going on during rescue ops. Those were vets with a bad case of flashbacks. You mean those weren’t people with a such a life dependence on government who couldn’t get out of the way of a train unless instructed to do so? Thanks for the laugh, Chuck old pal.

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Van,

That’s not entirely accurate.

Sunnis and Shiites tend to get together the best when they have their own borders. They were warm and fuzzy in Iraq courtesy of Saddam’s Ba’ath Party enforcers.

Cynthia Tucker did a good job of laying out the real issue. We’ve plunged ourselves into the middle of what is actually a regional conflict, with the Shiites (Iran and majority of Iraq) in competition with most of the rest of the Middle East (majority Sunni) for, as both groups try to congeal their populations and resources into respective superstates.

Let’s assume, because the administration has never defined the term, that “victory” is the creation of a stable, western-leaning, non-secular representative democracy. In other words, “America lite.”

The problem is, the only people who want that in the region are wearing uniforms with US flags on them. Because nobody over here bothers with asking Iraqis what they want anymore, foreign media services have asked, and been told they want stability.

They don’t really care about democracy right now. How can you, when you might die for the sin of shopping at the wrong market on the wrong day? They want a future for themselves and their families, just like we do, and they don’t really care who provides it to them.

We don’t listen, and simply respond with a particularly crude form of cowboy diplomacy. So who listens? Imams. Guys in the neighborhood. Everyone forgets guys like Al-Zaqwari were local activists back in the day.

Those guys promise to deliver freedom and stability, or die trying. They’re getting support from folks in other countries who have the same values as Iraqis (sunni or shiite). That resonates with them, just as it would with you if our country had been occupied and the local preacher was telling you to resist, and said that our Canadian friends were sending us supplies to help in the struggle.

It ain’t prattle, Van. It’s human nature.

By getalife

April 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Quit lying Van.

oh yeah,

Why do you hate Americans?

Geez.

By Captain Freedom

April 4, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Speaking of hating America, why is everyone silent about Pelosi visiting Syria and offering aid and comfort to Islamoatheists everywhere by taking the veil while she is there. Why, it’s worse than Hanoi Jane on the antiaircraft gun.

Here’s a photo of this facelift tragedy groveling before the demands of a retrogressive religious sect.

By Captain Freedom

April 4, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Terribly sorry. The Captain apologizes for the incorrect link in the last post.

Here is a photo of the facelift tragedy debasing herself in front of the demands of a retrogressive religious sect.

By WRF?

April 4, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Speaking of hating America, why is everyone silent about Pelosi visiting Syria

as opposed to the GOP Congressional group that was in Syria the day before she was? Why did our moron prez forget to mention that part?

By getalife

April 4, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Here are some more Captain

Geez.

By qwerqweqw

April 4, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Beecause he’s a cowardly little tinhorn AWOL dictator.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

time for the truth wonders if harold knows what the state “reward” is in leftist cess pits like Assachussets for queers getting divorced after being illegally “married”? For example would the treasonous bloated cretin Tokyo Rosie O’Dumbell have to cut down on its humungous pork scratchings/moonpies/anchovy pizzas etc comfort food bill to pay off its ‘partner’ in Assachussetts?

By jbmlaw

April 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Dear rarringt @ 12:35, I agree with much of what you wrote, but I would magnify one idea: “Because nobody over here bothers with asking Iraqis what they want anymore, foreign media services have asked, and been told they want stability.” The obvious follow up is, if Iraqi polls say they want American military to stay in Iraq for the immediate future, would you oppose the Democrat pull out? What if Sunni and Kurd polls say they want American military to stay, and Shiites favor an end to American presence, each poll by a 60-40 split?

Without regard to what Iraqis want, if we can focus Islamist anger such that they remain in Iraq to fight America, is that not an excellent reason to keep our troops there, rather than freeing the Islamists to wreak violence elsewhere?

By Mark Bream

April 4, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

tftt is jealous of Rosie O’Donnell because she has had the courage to come out of the closet, something tftt has not yet had the cojones to do herself. Maybe you will someday, Sybil.

By getalife

April 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Told ya they are wingnut insurgents

Geez.

By deegee

April 4, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Van, the Sunni minority in Iraq held all of the wealth and power under the dictatorship of Sadaam Hussein. Now that the US has imposed America Lite as rarringt has so aptly stated, the Sunni minority under a representative form of government is not faring so well. The Sunnis were strongarmed into the process. The US would not consider anything that looked like a seperation between Sunni, Shia and Kurd when forming the new Iraqi government. That was probably a mistake.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

LIBERAL LEFTIST LIAR Dingy Reid EXPOSED!!

News that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is co-sponsoring legislation aimed at cutting off funds for troops in Iraq comes in striking contrast to a statement he made shortly after last November’s elections. Reid said on November 30: “We’re not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds.”

The ONLY reason Tokyo Rosie O’Dumbell came out of the closet if that the fat perfidious mouthylesbianbitch is way too bloated to fit in the closet!!

Funny how crackpipe now assumes a male id to hide behind its cowardly effete abuse … I also knew crackpipe was some kind of demented far left racist androgynous hermaphrodite!!

By Mark Bream

April 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

I’m not crackpipe. I am your better. The exposer of your sexual relationship with the remains of J. Edgar Hoover. Sometimes I am you. I enjoy goading you and reading your blustery, completely insane responses. I own you, you faux Brit Nancy in a granny dress with pink fuzzy slippers.

By harold

April 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

well sure sunnis and shias lived together in peace and harmony happily ever after under saddam. there’s a reason he was such a bastard: that’s what it took to get the job done. dubya is clearly enough of a bastard but is way too stupid to get ‘r done

By harold

April 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

IRAQ ITAQ VICTORY STRATERGY:

TO HAVE THE SUNNI AND SHIITE LIVING TOGEHTER HAPPY IN INRAQ AND NOT KILLING EACH OTHER ANYMORES HERE IS ALL YOU AHVE TO DO:

GAS 10,000 KURDS THEN SAY “YOUR NEXT”

WORKS EVERY TIME

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

mark, sigh, you’ve exposed me. whilst i’ve been drooling on my keyboard all these many months, you’ve figured me out. and, exposed like this, i feel vulnerable. oh, j. edgar, hold me.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

see how easy it is to goad the Liberace worshipping unhinged anal stalker … just wittily call it someone else and it gets all flustered and abusively defensive with its trademark homofilth!!

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

GAS 10,000 KURDS THEN SAY “YOUR NEXT”

nip over to Irbil and say/do this harold!!

bet the Kurds secretly really think its very funny!!

By Mark Bream

April 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

My tone was triumphant, not defensive. But I guess the insane aren’t really all that perceptive. Nancy. Sybil. Diana. Queen. Ha ha ha ha.

By time for the truth

April 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

your tone was compulsively anal and defensively simpering but would have been VASTLY improved if it had also been genuinely suicidal … huge smirk

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I’ll respond to your last question first. You said,

Without regard to what Iraqis want, if we can focus Islamist anger such that they remain in Iraq to fight America, is that not an excellent reason to keep our troops there, rather than freeing the Islamists to wreak violence elsewhere?

So in other words, you’d rather use a proxy country to focus anger which we largely created, and allow people to continue to senselessly kill one another. Note also that your position requires putting our troops…our children…in the unenviable position of being a permanent sitting duck.

Taking the awful lessons of Vietnam into consideration, our troops deserve a better mandate than merely serving as grist for the mill. Let me ask you, if every member of your family (immediate and extended) under the age of 40 were drafted for such duty, would you still support that idea?

As to your question of whether I support a “democrat” pullout, I would first point that greater than 70% of Americans agree the war is pointless and our troops should be recalled. As only 40% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, I imagine there are a few GOPers running around who would agree it’s time to look for an exit strategy.

That said, I don’t think we should immediately and completely withdraw. That would lead to all out civil - if not regional - war, with a likely astronomical casualty rate.

It’s time to face the reality that Iraq really is three separate countries, and carve it up accordingly, with some sort of revenue sharing scheme.

The finished product would resemble Bosnia, with three confederate mini-states, with borders patrolled by a multinational force, led by the U.S. After all, we break it, we own it.

Like Korea and India before it, sometimes separate states really is the way to go. Iraqi and US leadership hasn’t been interested in this plan (as a unified Iraq just sounds sexier,) but it is one way of stopping the bloodshed - at least for now.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

“That said, I don’t think we should immediately and completely withdraw. That would lead to all out civil - if not regional - war, with a likely astronomical casualty rate.”

Well said. Too bad many on the left don’t agree.

By Dusty

April 4, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

Oh my,

All the liberals are out and running!

Felons in rehab may be your new neighbors (they only shot a few people one time) and, not surprisingly, they are all liberals. Since they are all liberals, well, don’t let them vote.

There now! You have complete honesty (sorta). A real conservative unlike the undercover liberal agents Captain Freedom and RedNeck Convert who can’t say Bush without spitting. Little Quislings who fool no one.

And rarringt,

Into the Patagonian pothole for you. Our own Revolutionary War was a regional conflict with “rabble”, loyalists, lost battles, Prussians and that didn’t stop us. The French helped us back when they were brave. So we “help” the Iraqis and they will make it. Have you no confidence in freedom? Is there another dictator you would like to countenance since Saddam is gone?

PS..Actually, folks, I am not comfortable with ex-felons whether they are liberals or not. They didn’t run in my family and I never knew any.

If felons had bad judgment about the law, I am afraid other decisions would be negatively influenced by incarceration. Sorry. No vote for felons.

By The Mighty Middle

April 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Regarding Iraq, it’s the two extremes that make the situation a mess, the blind, dumb, nothing’s wrong attitude of the right AND the let’s get out now attitude of the left. Both of those sides are wrong. If there is to be a good outcome, the reasonable people of the middle will bring it about. It’s way past time for Bush and Pelosi to heed these people.

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Thanks, but I imagine more than a few on this blog would label me a leftist, America hating, cut and running, Jesus despising, affirmative-action supporting, criminal enabling, values barren, gosh-darned liberal.

Other than supporting AA, I’m none of those things. Neither are most others on the left.

Seriously, one thing I’ve learned from this blog is that people grossly misunderstand one another, regardless of ideology. Some on both sides seem completely convinced they are completely correct on all things all the time.

Aristotle, for one, said that the path to knowledge begins with confessing one’s own ignorance. Both sides have valid points, where much can be learned, and wisdom gained, but that doesn’t happen until you respect the fact that people disagree, and that’s not altogether a bad thing.

We have a word for respecting diverse views. It’s “democracy.”

By Jack

April 4, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

The folks in the middle are “sheeple” The crop of no-nads politicians will never listen to the “sheeple” A good start would be to eliminate all politicians and lawyers. “sorry jbmlaw”

By The Mighty Middle

April 4, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are right, of course. The common sense folks are not represented in politics and are dismissed as “sheeple.” Your suggestion regarding politicians and lawyers is spot on.

By Reason is boring

April 4, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

See, all this reasonableness put the moonbats and wingnuts to sleep.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

Wonder what Dusty looks like? or Barbara? :)

By Barbara

April 4, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m 60 and hot in that way that Sigourney Weaver is. Right now I’m baking an apple pie for the grandkids while wearing only an apron. No, they aren’t here, only the pool boy. I’ll be dressed in grandmotherly fashion when they get here.

By Dusty

April 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

rarringt

How far did Aristotle carry this confessing your ignorance thing? Snobbery is one thing but behaving like an ignorant twit to gain knowledge seems a bit out of line.

Diverse opinions are often divisive even as we allow them. I do not believe we can drop our ethics, our upbringing, our education, our faith, our friendships, our patriotism and sit like a blank slate with someone with whom we totally disagree.

Why not? Because we are not children. Because we have already evaluated so much of this and found a set of values and ethics which we will defend at all costs.

I cannot be willy-nilly about something which I consider wrong.

By your standards, I am ignorant, a closed mind. That may be true in an Aristotlen way. But my country (which is basicly what we are talking about here) is like my family, I will defend them at all costs.

If I am run down, I will still be fighting for what I believe in, not like a philosophical jellyfish gently fitting in with any obstacle it encounters.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Thank you Barbara.

By Robert

April 4, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

In other words an ironclad ideologue who will stubbornly cling to anything you believe in, including a burning liferaft in a sea of gasoline.

Good luck with that.

By Barbara

April 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

That’s what the pool boy said.

You are both so welcome.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Lucky pool boy….

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

With all due respect, what makes this country, which you purport to defend, special is precisely the fact that diverse opinions are (or at least should be) embraced. What makes the American experiment so interesting is that radically different viewpoints are tolerated and frequently encouraged.

Certain people on the blog like to make fun of southerners and their alleged “inbreeding.” Well, there’s another, more dangerous form of inbreeding - homogeneous thought, where everyone agrees with everyone else, or else.

That is prevalent in many areas of the middle east, where religious fundamentalists are trying to usher in a return to the 12th century. We’ve got fundamentalists over here too, Dusty. Both groups are dangerous.

Aristotle was just trying to make the point that we don’t know everything, and as such always - always - have something to learn. It wasn’t snobbery, it was a pragmatic realization that we are not omniscient.

The most dangerous and powerful thing any person can do, is open their mind. I’m not talking about a kumbaya session with a child molester, but I am talking about having coffee with someone of a different race, religion, gender, upbringing, culture, business, political ideology, etc. than you and actually listening to what they have to say. That, in part, is why I like to visit Jim’s blog.

Maybe you’ll find they are very different than you. Maybe you’ll realize they have a lot more in common with you than you thought. You’ll probably realize it’s a combination of the two.

Either way, you just might learn that you have a lot to learn.

By The Mighty Middle

April 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

Bush, Pelosi and Reid could learn a lot from each other by taking that approach rarringt. Unfortunately, neither seems willing

By Dusty

April 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

OK Robert,if you are talking to me.

I will assume the philosophical jelly fish stance of complete resilience and and ask your honorable opinion of expertise since I am an ignorant peon in the sea of knowledge. Whatcha wanna talk about?

Jack,

You first! But I confess that I am often mistaken for Marilyn Monroe!! I also confess that Barbara is more truthful than I am.

By Realist

April 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Jack, Have you ever seen the a* of a wilderbeast?..then you’ve seen Dusty, Or either her mom.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

I’m a 58 y.o. troll that lives under a bridge near Clairmont Rd. Look kinda like Deniro but better. LOL

By Robert

April 4, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

What?

By Jack

April 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

That wasn’t very nice Unrealist. She may very well look like M M. This is a blog.

By Realist

April 4, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah…a dead crack head…I can believe it. M M it is then!

By rarringt

April 4, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

And with Realist’s last comment about Miss Norma Jean, I bid you all goodnight, as I scurry out of my Patagonian pothole.

By Jack

April 4, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

They didn’t have crack back then. But you wouldn’t know, you hadn’t hatched yet.

By jbmlaw

April 4, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Dear Rarringt @ 2:23, you post seemingly reflects a lack of knowledge previously posted here, that my younger son is a first-year commissioned officer with the Navy, presently in Pensacola. Your apology for the silly argument about my willingness to serve myself, or allow my son to serve, is accepted.

You avoided the easy questions with a nonanswer, so I’ll ask the hard one: how does a congressionally mandated pullout date differ from a surrender? How will that make the Islamists less likely to attempt to attack American interests in places other than Iraq?

By Gnu

April 4, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Heh, I have a hot a-s-s, all the stud gnus are always hitting on me.

By deegee

April 4, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

The noise in Washington concerning the Iraq war and mandated pull out dates is designed to help candidates campaign. We are in an election cycle once again and the candidates need to tell the voters where they stand on the war in Iraq. I could be wrong but does anyone really think that Al Qaeda gives a flip about what Harry Reid says and strategizes based on what hot air is circulated in Washington. They are on a mission and they have the will and the means to do whatever they want. Unfortunately we have W over here playing into their hands. He goes on the air last night and says that diplomacy with Syria doesn’t work and today Syria takes credit for freeing British hostages. Sheeesh.

By Dusty

April 4, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

rarringt

How nicely you put it to say that I am a narrow minded bigot who listens to no one. Not quite true but if it makes you feel better OK.

Yes, I am a Southerner and proud of it.

Oh yes, diversity!! While working at Emory I not only had coffee but daily lunch with my friends and coworkers originally from Haiti, Colombia and Tiawan, even Atlanta! But most summers I have the privilege of working with native Americans, sometimes in Arizona. Sometimes South Dakota. I love it. And not to forget church, where I worship with Liberian friends, one of whom is in Liberia now working briefly for the UN. In other words,I am not unfamiliar with diversity.

Having strong values does not preclude the ability to see those of others. If I believed in my omniscience, I would have been in trouble long ago.

Also, having five children not only broadens the hips, it also broadens the mind. An understanding husband is also a great asset for insight. May we all be blessed with knowledge that even Aristotle would envy!!!!!

By Billy

April 4, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw wrote, “…how does a congressionally mandated pullout date differ from a surrender?”

That’s a good question. Jbmlaw should ask the Republicans in Congress who voted to cut off funding for our troops in Somalia in the early 1990s. I don’t know what they would say, but typically, when one surrenders to another, they give themselves up to the enemy. Of course, that’s not what’s being proposed here, but jbmlaw would prefer to win debates with clever semantics than with honest discussion.

jbmlaw goes on to write “How will that make the Islamists less likely to attempt to attack American interests in places other than Iraq?”

Here jbmlaw plays the race (or sectarian) card. He would prefer to dehumanize all Muslims and have us think of each and every man, woman and child who follows Islam as terrorists and enemies. Further evidence that he’s not interested in honest discussion. Perpetual division, hatred and war is his goal.

By JP

April 5, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

How long will it take Woot to toe the party line with regard to Iran? Britain managed to get their hostages back without anyone being killed. WTF were they thinking?!?!

By zeke

April 6, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

10-4

By zeke

April 6, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

10-4