Hate crimes an extra menace to society

pam,
"And yet, putting them in prison for life is also revenge, isn't it?"

i don't think so. that's presumably to protect us from them, right? they've broken the social contract.

"To support the death penalty is merely to entertain a complicated ritual of revenge. Revenge, at whatever level, for whatever reason, is simply petty."

And yet, putting them in prison for life is also revenge, isn't it? But you have to do something with them. You can't just say "Oh, well, you killed thirteen people, but nothing we do to you will bring them back, so have a nice life and please don't do it again."

As for a list of people wrongly executed, there could never be such a thing, because how would we know? Since the advent of DNA, however, an appallingly large percentage of people on death row have been cleared. Is there any reason to believe that we did a better job of finding the right person before we had it?

Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977. In 2000, then-governor George Ryan suspended it, because more people (13) had been released from death row after DNA proved them innocent, than the number (12) who had been put to death since then. When he left office, he commuted the sentences of everyone on death row (to life). He said he believed in CP, but not without certain knowledge of guilt.

Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota recommended reinstating the death penalty that was banned in 1911. However, his proposal was that it could only be applied in cases where DNA proved guilt, which would be a higher standard than any other CP state.

"Good! The impression I got, since you mentioned prohibition and the foolishness of attempting to legislate morality, was that you felt adults should be able to do pretty much whatever they want to do, so long as no other people are 'hurt'. I have problems with that."

No, I'm no Libertarian. I have no problem with seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws. I realize that people who exercise a "right" to live dangerously cost the rest of us money, in higher insurance rates, helicopters to take them to the shock-trauma unit, or just in the man and water power to clean them off the pavement.

I just meant that people who insist (often for religious reasons) in making crimes out of "vices" such as gambling, drinking (without driving), smoking, doing drugs, visiting prostitutes, and even looking at porn (adult, not kiddie) are just making organized crime pay very well indeed. Also making all those things "cool" for rebellious teens.

It never stops it, it just drives it underground. There are better ways to discourage it, as has been done with smoking. And taxing it has the added advantage of filling state coffers.

Persiflage:

"Sometimes castaways/throwaways don't turn out so bad - even the criminally inclined..."

Couldn't agree more.

'We could borrow a page from the Brits: appropriate Puerto Rico, Cuba, or some other island easily monitored from see by cruising patrol ships, and send all our criminal elements there, letting them fend for themselves.'

Sometimes castaways/throwaways don't turn out so bad - even the criminally inclined...besides which, they may have simply been misunderstood souls searching for their true destiny. Give 'em a generation or two, and they've got single malt and more!

Onofrio, right you are - real justice is all in the proper application to the deserving parties.....both an art and a science in this crazy old world!

best to all, Persiflage

Schaum,

"To support the death penalty is merely to entertain a complicated ritual of revenge. Revenge, at whatever level, for whatever reason, is simply petty. Not an INTJ thing."

Simple, petty rituals are quite my cup of tea.
The Lares, the Penates, and the Manes all agree.

Schaum,

"We could borrow a page from the Brits: appropriate Puerto Rico, Cuba, or some other island easily monitored from see by cruising patrol ships, and send all our criminal elements there, letting them fend for themselves."

Ah, home! There's no place like it ;^)

I like my scotch neat - must be that vengeful streak. Cheers, Schaum!

Persiflage,

"This is a very dicey issue, and I'm pretty soft on non-violent criminals - but not so much on violent offenders.....particularly the sadistic aholes that deeply enjoy the pain of innocent victims for their own personal misbegotten pleasure - just before killing them without mercy."

Totally with you there, Persiflage.

The devil in all this isn't the punishment per se, but making sure it's justly applied.

That requires a more-than-religious devotion to jurisprudential fairness - hard to generate, and to perpetuate, in this Midgard.

Nevertheless, something to aim for.

"When did Leah and puppies leave? What about your partner? Doesn't Sebastian have contact with him?"

Puppies were gone 7-8 weeks ago. Leah left shortly after that. My partner is in Germany. Thats why S and I are moving there.

Congressman Ron Paul, who is a physician, weighs in about about the government response to h1n1 flu, and about vaccines generally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RlVeJNT0QM

Schaum:

We could borrow a page from the Brits: appropriate Puerto Rico, Cuba, or some other island easily monitored from see by cruising patrol ships, and send all our criminal elements there, letting them fend for themselves.
-----------------
Interesting, but why ship them off to PR or Cuba. They have enough problems, each in its own way.

How about Texas?

(Don't yell at me, Texans, please.)

Schaum,

"Since his girlfriend left, and all the puppies are gone, its just him and me. I am the only other living thing he has contact with"

When did Leah and puppies leave? What about your partner? Doesn't Sebastian have contact with him?

Therapy is expensive. Maybe, you could bring Leah back?

see = sea

I'm losing it. Time for a scotch and soda.

"Warehousing serial killers doesn't seem like a petty undertaking - but it does seem like a paltry solution."

We could borrow a page from the Brits: appropriate Puerto Rico, Cuba, or some other island easily monitored from see by cruising patrol ships, and send all our criminal elements there, letting them fend for themselves.

"But I can't understand it. Dogs eat glasses?"

Thats just the latest. Its my fault, I guess...I've created a monster. Since his girlfriend left, and all the puppies are gone, its just him and me. I am the only other living thing he has contact with. He won't let me out of his sight...and when I do leave him alone if I leave, and don't put him in a kennel, he attacks anything of mine he can get in his mouth...shoes, socks, books, glasses, duvet...you name it. He's just expressing anger, I think. I suppose he'll need a therapist before this is over.

'To support the death penalty is merely to entertain a complicated ritual of revenge. Revenge, at whatever level, for whatever reason, is simply petty. Not an INTJ thing.'

Could I be the rare INTJ exception to the rule? Warehousing serial killers doesn't seem like a petty undertaking - but it does seem like a paltry solution.

So sayeth this INTJ........sometimes an eye for an eye means just exactly that. Admittedly, not a Gandhi sort of thing...

Farnaz, thanks for the links!

Farnaz:

"And why bother killing yourself when you can hire someone to do it for you?"

I'm too introverted to do that. I'd have to do it myself. I could never trust someone to do it the way I would want, or to keep his mouth shut.

Schaum,

Fur has already flown in Sebastian's vicinity...the little s**t chewed up my glasses, INCLUDING the lenses! I can't see, have a nasty headache, and have spent the afternoon forcing wet bread down his throat in hopes of engulfing/surrounding any glass he swallowed.
-----------------------------
My God, you poor thing! That is horrible. I can see why you thought we shouldn't consider his breed for my daughter.

But I can't understand it. Dogs eat glasses?

Schaum,

I think that all things considered, you are a gentle soul. You get bored and irritated, but you are a gentle soul. You get annoyed with the gentleness, sometimes, I think, although less so than in the past.

Crystal ball vanishes....

Fur has already flown in Sebastian's vicinity...the little s**t chewed up my glasses, INCLUDING the lenses! I can't see, have a nasty headache, and have spent the afternoon forcing wet bread down his throat in hopes of engulfing/surrounding any glass he swallowed.

Schaum:

"Does that weaken the argument against CP?"

No, not for me. The arguments against CP are solid and convincing.
----------------------
For me, too. However, I think that particular fact, if it is one, could help to strengthen the argument against it.

Roper v. Simmons, Roper v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, what do all these ROs mean I wonder.

Farnaz:

"Does that weaken the argument against CP?"

No, not for me. The arguments against CP are solid and convincing.

Schaum:

Congratulations, Farnaz. You are close to grasping the obvious.

The 'cruel and unusual' did not originate in US law, but in English law, where it meant exactly what I wrote.
-----------------------------
Meeoww. I merely quoted what you wrote. Beware of fur flying in Sebastian's vicinity.

Schaum:

"The wealthy are rarely sentenced to die."

If this is true, could it be that the wealthy rarely commit capital offenses?
---------------------------------------
I've thought about this, OJ notwithstanding. Who knows? Who among the wealthy are charged?
And why bother killing yourself when you can hire someone to do it for you?

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that far fewer among the wealthy do kill, either directly or by proxy. Does that weaken the argument against CP?

Btw., in my case, it may or may not be a Meyers Briggs thing.

Congratulations, Farnaz. You are close to grasping the obvious.

The 'cruel and unusual' did not originate in US law, but in English law, where it meant exactly what I wrote.

Make that Roper v. Simmons.

Schaum:

"The "cruel and unusual" concerns of the eighth amendment have nothing to do with whether capital punishment should or should not be law of the land."

The above is what you wrote. What I'm saying is that the Eighth Amendment has figured in all legal discussions of the CP, that is, all that I'm aware of. It surely does concern capital punishment, proportionality, etc.

Persiflage,

Here are some links for you.

Judicial Opinions in Roper v. Simmons

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html

Appellant's reply brief:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.pet.rep.pdf

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

Farnaz:

You read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote:

"from English law, where the 'cruel and unusual' concern was with the manner in which the state executed prisoners:"

I specifically referred to what English law meant by cruel and unusual. I have read Roper v Wade.

To support the death penalty is merely to entertain a complicated ritual of revenge. Revenge, at whatever level, for whatever reason, is simply petty.

Not an INTJ thing.

Persiflage,

Re: Wrongfully executed

I believe I have seen such a list although I may have been hallucinating since the sheer cost that publishing such a list could incur, not to mention the disgust it would engender in Americans is difficult to fathom.

As for pulling the trigger oneself, I probably could have done so myself on, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer, perhaps, Simmons of Roper v. Simmons.

Consider the former governor of Illinois' decision to call a moratorium on executions for awhile, Texas court appointing attorneys who have been disbarred, sleep in court, etc.

In Roper v. Simmons, the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a sentence of life granted on appeal by the State Supreme Court. O'Connor was among the dissenters. Worth reading, really, when you have a moment.

Roper v. Wade!!!! That's because I've been reading the Catholic attacks on Ted Kennedy, Richard Dawkins, et al, even our own Thomas Baum. That's taking it a bit far, I think.

Roper v. Simmons

Schaum:

The "cruel and unusual" concerns of the eighth amendment have nothing to do with whether capital punishment should or should not be law of the land. Our Eighth Amendment was taken, almost verbatim, from English law, where the 'cruel and unusual' concern was with the manner in which the state executed prisoners: beheading was not considered cruel or unusual, whereas hanging, drawing and quartering was.
------------------------------
Look at the links, and read Roper v. Simmons. The eighth amendment has figured in all legal discussions of the death penalty. It figures in Roper v. Wade, heavily regarding proportionality and everywhere else where it comes up. What it was originally concerned with is not at issue. Wikipedia has a good article on it.

Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

'Mainly, I oppose capital punishment because: The wealthy are rarely sentenced to die. Innocent people have been executed and more will be.

Farnaz, your points are probably indisputable, but I've never seen a list of wrongfully executed death penalty prisoners - although I'm not saying there isn't one.

It is true that convicted killers/rapists have been set free based on DNA evidence assessed many years later.

As far as the wealthy go, both the rich and their lawyers are smarter than your average killer (and their public defenders), making real justice all too uncommon in this rarified realm.

I suspect that problems start with the subtleties of the jury selection process, which has much to do with unjust outcomes -after the fact. This can be a very expensive and time-consuming undertaking, or so I've heard.

I knew about the dealth penalty restrictions on perpetrators under age 18 -the reason Beltway sniper John Malvo escaped the death penalty, while John Allen Muhammed did not. I seem to recall that underage teen John Malvo killed the majority of victims.

BTW, I'd be glad to read any links that you might send my way.....

The death penalty is far too widely used, and particularly in certain states (Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida come to mind) - the fact that it's used excessively in the Bible belt in particular is glaringly evident.

A blanket ban on the death penalty under any and all circumstances is not something that I could necessarily support however.

As Onofrio says, I could, under the right circumstances, pull the lever myself - I'm not asking society to do something I wouldn't do - and most posters here seem to agree that given the right circumstances, virtually anyone can potentially kill another human intentionally.

However, drawing fine distinctions between killing and murder is probably akin to being sucked into a legal black hole....

This is a very dicey issue, and I'm pretty soft on non-violent criminals - but not so much on violent offenders.....particularly the sadistic aholes that deeply enjoy the pain of innocent victims for their own personal misbegotten pleasure - just before killing them without mercy.

When I referenced the 'heat of the moment' a few posts back, I was referring to a life-threatening situation, rather than the momentary passion of killing a wayward spouse's lover - just to clarify something that Pam said.

regards, Persiflage

"The wealthy are rarely sentenced to die."

If this is true, could it be that the wealthy rarely commit capital offenses?

Farnaz:

The "cruel and unusual" concerns of the eighth amendment have nothing to do with whether capital punishment should or should not be law of the land. Our Eighth Amendment was taken, almost verbatim, from English law, where the 'cruel and unusual' concern was with the manner in which the state executed prisoners: beheading was not considered cruel or unusual, whereas hanging, drawing and quartering was.

Farnaz:

"Can the state murder? Yes."

Teechnically, that is what a death warrant is: a license to murder a specified person.

On Roper v. Simmons, Scalia is also worth reading.

Mainly, I oppose capital punishment because:

The wealthy are rarely sentenced to die.

Innocent people have been executed and more will be.

Persiflage,

On who should be executed, you should read the judicial opinions in the Roper v. Simmons case, with which I began this discussion. I believe Nixon, the appellant (prosecutor) had a very strong case, think O'Connor who wrote the dissenting opinion did, too.

With Simmons, juveniles under eighteen cannot be executed in the United States, regardless of the viciousness of their acts. Use google for the case, or, if you'd like I'll post a link.

Persiflage,

Your typology of the executable I fully endorse.

And, if it fell to me, I would feel no qualms about pulling the lever, squeezing the trigger, or whatever other method of despatch were legislated.

My vote goes to the guillotine.

A life for a life...certes!

Vengeful feelings? You bet!

Persiflage,

Walter, I don't buy into this societal revenge theorem that posters here are equating with the death penalty - not altogether
----------------
I'm familiar with that link and others like it. The only argument of any weight is what is commonly called the moral argument. However, it has been successfully questioned, if not demolished.

Another argument is that it assures the murderer will not murder again, is the only means of insurance. This, of course, is true. HOwever, the matter of how many have been victims of lifers, who actually were kept in prison for life, calls this argument into question, as well.

I think the Israelis who take the Commandments seriously banned capital punishment from the beginning because it appeared to be murder, to them.

Can the state murder? Yes.

'well those are all great examples of horrible murderers. i still don't see what's accomplished by us murdering them - other than revenge - rather sending them to prison for life. their murders aren't undone.'

Walter, I don't buy into this societal revenge theorem that posters here are equating with the death penalty - not altogether.

Reading the link below will demonstrate the complexity of punishment vs revenge. But I'm coming from a different place - I believe it's a matter of balance...dare I say, social order? What would Confucious or Lao Tzu say?

Depriving a murder victim of the right to life with malice aforethought, while inflicting pain, torture, and ultimately death, solely for the gratification of the killer (as my examples typify) upsets the balance of nature - as only humans can do.

Balance must be restored, and the brutality of the murder must be neutralized - notice I didn't say avenged.

By this premeditated act of violence, The killer has forfeit the right to their own life, whether in prison or otherwise. It's all about balance......

This is admittedly not a popular position for a policy liberal to take :^)

As for extracting maximum punishment by imprisoning the unrepentent killer for life - I really doubt it.

Life is not pleasant behind bars, but most killers would definitely prefer it to the alternative....Charles Manson seems to be in good spirits whenever I've seen fleeting glimpes of him TV-wise.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b450m04618658421/fulltext.pdf

'well those are all great examples of horrible murderers. i still don't see what's accomplished by us murdering them - other than revenge - rather sending them to prison for life. their murders aren't undone.'

Walter, I don't buy into this societal revenge theorem that posters here are equating with the death penalty - not altogether.

Reading the link below will demonstrate the complexity of punishment vs revenge. But I'm coming from a different place - I believe it's a matter of balance...dare I say, social order? What would Confucious or Lao Tzu say?

Depriving a murder victim of the right to life with malice aforethought, while inflicting pain, torture, and ultimately death, solely for the gratification of the killer (as my examples typify) upsets the balance of nature - as only humans can do.

Balance must be restored, and the brutality of the murder must be neutralized - notice I didn't say avenged.

By this premeditated act of violence, The killer has forfeit the right to their own life, whether in prison or otherwise. It's all about balance......

This is admittedly not a popular position for a policy liberal to take :^)

As for extracting maximum punishment by imprisoning the unrepentent killer for life - I really doubt it.

Life is not pleasant behind bars, but most killers would definitely prefer it to the alternative....Charles Manson seems to be in good spirits whenever I've seen fleeting glimpes of him TV-wise.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b450m04618658421/fulltext.pdf

Alles,

On prisons and money:

I asked one of my classes to do a mini research project this week: To find out if there are any interesting trends relevant to the closing of prisons upstate.

Just received an email from a criminal justice major, whose research consisted in asking his criminal justice prof.! (He also gave him sources, and the student will do the work, if not, technically, research work of downloading them.)

Identified trend: Longer prison sentences, more life sentences.

Interesting. Sad.

PS. Schaum, my last post should have been addressed to you.

"That, ultimately, is where proportionality resides, no?"

Well, to agree would be to suggest value in the death penalty. And I just don't. Extinguishing life (any life -- I can't get past being a Buddhist, sorry) is either ok, or its wrong, regardless of whether you are an individual doing murder without license, or a state which HAS licensed itself to do murder.

DP is not punishment. It is revenge. And, supposedly, the law does not embrace revenge.
==============================
Schaum, first, I think there was a miscommunication. My point was that in Roper v. Simmons, the proportionality issue does not obtain for Simmons' age at the time of the killing.

The proportionality issue rests with CP in and of itself. That was my point: The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) Whether the justices supported the DP or not is beside the point. For all I know O'Connor does not. Yet, she dissented, as, I think, at least at this point, she should have.

On the revenge issue: The commandment reads "Thou shalt not MURDER," not Thou shalt not kill. Only one person has ever been executed in Israel, so I suspect they do consider the death penalty to be murder.
------------------------------
On prison building, criminalization, recriminalization:

My point, I thought, was clear, but there seems to be a little confusion, maybe.

1. I do not support criminalization or recriminalization for the purpose of building prisons.

2. Building prisons does, as Pamsm asserts provide revenues for big business, of course. It also provides SCADS of money for the government in the form of taxes, jobs, etc.

As I mentioned, that is why New York State is in the process of criminalizing, etc., looking for new arrests, sentences. Upstate prisons are closing. Prisoners are serving out their sentences at Rikers.

--------------------------------------
Legislating morality:

We do it every day.

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. Whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. He who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; he who defines thus dominates and lives; and he who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."

---- The Second Sin. New York: Doubleday, 1973

persiflage,
"How am I doing so far??"

well those are all great examples of horrible murderers. i still don't see what's accomplished by us murdering them - other than revenge - rather sending them to prison for life. their murders aren't undone.

Pamsm:

"As to legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drugs, Schaum, I'm not suggesting that we hand them out like candy to anyone who wants a buzz. "

Good! The impression I got, since you mentioned prohibition and the foolishness of attempting to legislate morality, was that you felt adults should be able to do pretty much whatever they want to do, so long as no other people are "hurt". I have problems with that.

Schaum,

You're correct - serial killers sometimes run in pairs for periods of time. All fit the profile of psychopathic personality, and many are both paranoid and quite sadistic as well - taking great pleasure in torturing their victims, and the families of victims if possible.

I don't pretend to exhaust the topic by any means, since much has been written about this particular subject and related victimology in recent years.

Manson is the purest kind of psychopath, but as you say personally killed only one person that anyone knows of. His dominance is pretty typical of other murderous alliances, where there is room for only one leader.

It's dangerous out there......

Walter, you said:

'persiflage, what circumstances are you thinking of where the death penalty is warranted?'

A few examples - the abduction, rape, and murder of children warrants the death penalty (subjective, emotional, but nevertheless a suitable example). These perpetrators often don't survive prison for any length of time at any rate.

Serial killers warrant the death penalty, but curiously somehow often evade their just desserts - Charles Manson and family members are notorious examples...all are lifers (or died in prison).

There are other examples of long-term imprisoned survivors among serial killers, although a number are killed in prison. The Boston Strangler and Jeffrey Dahmer are a couple of examples. Charles Manson clearly is protected by more stringent rules of prison isolation than these two must have been.

Mass murderers that survive their rampage may very well warrant the death penalty, but are often suicidal and have no intention of being taken alive.

Stateside terrorists that kill large numbers of people and survive - should not.

Please notice that all of these are pre-meditated acts, and probably all meet the criteria of first degree murder with special circumstances.

My point of view on this is obviously not informed by religious forces of any kind - but by a certain set of personal values, since I also support the right of all women to have complete reproductive control over their bodies.

How am I doing so far??

Persiflage:

"Serial murderers are loners, don't take orders from anyone, and are not by definition mentally ill, but they are certainly mentally deranged by any reasonable standard of sane behavior. They enjoy their work..."

Well, not exactly. There is no single profile for serial killers. Most serial killers are not psychotic to the degree that they cannot distinguish right from wrong -- and that is the test in court. Many mentally ill people have a clear understanding of right from wrong. They get prosecuted for murder.

As for serial killers being loners...some are, some are not. Again, there is no single profile that fits all. The Manson killers were not loners. In fact, they were seriously psychologically dependent upon each other, and upon Charles Manson. Manson, by the way, has been incorrectly called a serial killer in the ignorant media. He is not. He has, himself, only killed one person, Shorty Shea.

pam,
"As to legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drugs, Schaum, I'm not suggesting that we hand them out like candy to anyone who wants a buzz. People would have to register as addicts. They would get only what they needed to avoid withdrawal symptoms. They would have counseling and rehab programs available, and would be encouraged to use them.

Once the huge profits of the black market are removed, so is the incentive to addict others."

at least as regards pot, we should just "move the line" we currently have to include it. treat it like alcohol.

as for more "serious" drugs, i'd like to legalize them on principle, but fear the consequences. cocaine, heroin legal?! hard to imagine it not seriously impacting many lives besides the users'.

"If prostitution were legalized, hookers would also have to register, pay taxes on profits, pass health checks... They could advertise (discreetly) and there would be no profit for pimps, or fear of reporting abuse."

the prohibition on prostitution is ancient morality. with prostitution legal, no one is forcing those with moral objections to use them. if someone else wants to use a prostitute, well, as mill said, "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Comments on a few things:

"Heat-of-the-moment" killing doesn't get you a pass, it's still murder, just not first degree. To plot and plan to kill someone is seen as a greater crime.

I'm against capital punishment for two reasons:
1)Sometimes the wrong guy is killed, as we've seen in abundance since the advent of DNA testing. Even one is too many. Close your eyes and imagine yourself in that position - you're about to die at the hands of fellow humans - you're helpless to prevent it - and you didn't do what you're accused of. Could there be a greater horror?

2) To me, death is infinitely preferable to spending the rest of one's life in prison.

As to legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drugs, Schaum, I'm not suggesting that we hand them out like candy to anyone who wants a buzz. People would have to register as addicts. They would get only what they needed to avoid withdrawal symptoms. They would have counseling and rehab programs available, and would be encouraged to use them.

Once the huge profits of the black market are removed, so is the incentive to addict others.

If prostitution were legalized, hookers would also have to register, pay taxes on profits, pass health checks... They could advertise (discreetly) and there would be no profit for pimps, or fear of reporting abuse.

Your necromania example is a red herring. There may be no "harm" to the dead person, per se, but dead people have living loved ones who could legitimately claim harm. And public lewdness laws would still apply.

Schaum, you said:

"These are mental disorders. Certainly the idea that the mentally ill should be deprived of life was a very popular one in Nazi Germany. Shall we kill people for being mentally ill, or put them where they cannot get out for the rest of their lives?'

Personality disorders are not by any means classified in the same way as mental illness/psychosis. With the diagnosis of a psychotic condition it is presumed that said individual has no control over their behavior - are compelled by their psychosis to act, even in the case of certain heinous crimes committed by criminally insane, homicidal paranoid schitzophrenics.

Consequently we have the mental illness defense in murder trials of 'not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect', and notoriously difficult to prove. Mental retardation also has a similar history in terms of lessening the perpetrator's degree of guilt.

I personally believe that in both cases, the crimes committed and following punishment should be mitigated to a degree by either the established presence of insanity/psychosis or retardation - neither are guilty to the same degree as a diagnosed personality disorder, who clearly knows right from wrong, but acts without consequence for their actions - whether out of an uncontrollable compulsion, pre-meditation, or otherwise.

People with personality disorders are responsible for their actions, and in their most extreme form make up the pantheon of our most notorious serial murderers and homocidal sadists.

Nazis were well staffed by psychopathic personalities but had nothing on these folks....many others were just 'following orders'.

Serial murderers are loners, don't take orders from anyone, and are not by definition mentally ill, but they are certainly mentally deranged by any reasonable standard of sane behavior. They enjoy their work......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder

Edbyronadams:

"It's the categorical imperative putting you at odds with "all killing" that strikes me as strange."

Thanks for calling me on that one. I should have said "...extinguishing life, except to protect my own or the lives of those I love." I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Schaum wrote:

"Nothing "strange" about it.
Mill’s comment: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

This is not an endorsement of CP. CP does not prevent harm to others. It is revenge, extracted AFTER harm is done -- and you better hope the police/prosecutors/jury had the right man!"

I don't have a problem with Mills. It's the categorical imperative putting you at odds with "all killing" that strikes me as strange.

As far as CP goes, it is totally a matter of public opinion. If a proscription against it undermines the people's faith in a governmental system of justice because they do not see justice being meted out, that is enough of a problem to sacrifice the few for the many.

Killing is another problem altogether. The weakness in Utilitarianism is that we lack the wisdom to see the future. That is when killing the few to save the many becomes a slippery slope. After all, Stalin sometimes justified his wholesale slaughter on the basis of creating the new, collective loving new Soviet man.

WalterIFC:

"so, the only argument left standing is revenge, or as we might euphemize, “closure.” it feels good to kill the killer. it completes some sort of circle. you might call it ancient “justice” – an-eye-for-an-eye."

Exactly! Except that the -eye-for-an-eye bit was not intended as a license; it was intended as a proscription against taking MORE than you had lost. And it did allow for the possibility of forgiveness, in part or in toto, of one's losses.

Persiflage:

""under certain circumstances, virtually anyone/everyone could kill another human in the heat of the moment and on purpose, and this of course includes self-defense, the defense of loved ones, etc."

Yes, Walter is right: this is not murder. You always have the right to defend your life, your home, your family. Nobody gets prosecuted for this.

Referencing the earlier thread whether to get the flu shots:

The furor grows. The holistic health fanatics (I use holistic health products and services myself, I just don't make it a religion) are having a field day preaching, Big Pharma's making money, the news outlets are spewing.

Two objections in particular to the H1N1 vaccine that may have substance are that the vaccine's development was rushed, and that it may not work on the rapidly mutating strain(s).

None of this is new.
Fluu has been with us for quite some time.
Thehe h1n1 subtype has been with us for quite some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

I don't understand the hype and conflicting info surrounding this flu season. I last had the flu in 2004. It lasted about 30 hours. I've had two flu shots in my life, the effects of both being FAR worse than any flu I've ever suffered ... obviously I don't know if they worked or not. I'm leaning against getting a conventional or H1N1 shot this year, even though the holistic conspiracy freaks are pissing me off with their anti-pharmaceutical rhetoric. I sort of get where they're coming from, I don't even take painkillers (I was on regular Advil for one day after a wisdom tooth extraction) and don't medicate the odd cold or cough except with homemade chicken soup (by which I swear) ... but some of their schtick is over the top.

persiflage,
nice, took the middle path...

"under certain circumstances, virtually anyone/everyone could kill another human in the heat of the moment and on purpose, and this of course includes self-defense, the defense of loved ones, etc.

In such cases, the spontaneous choice to live is all but made for us by instinct - unless we fall into a fatal mode of self-reflection. This is but one of a number of circumstances/examples where killing is considered perfectly justified by virtually all societies."

here you might be blurring the idea of "murder" and "killing".

soldiers kill all the time. that's not much different from "self-defense". protecting a loved one from death is similar. i don't think anyone would call those "murder", really, in the way they would call going into mcdonald's and shooting people murder. (i realize here there might be a contradiction, logically speaking, with my hate crimes positions...i'm thinking about that...)

in this way, capital punishment really is murder. it's not self-defense. the convict is not a threat to life anymore.

also, i know laws do consider heat-of-the-moment as some kind of excuse/mitigating circumstance for killing someone. i think heat-of-the-moment is still "murder"

persiflage, what circumstances are you thinking of where the death penalty is warranted?

Persiflage:

"Having read and studied extensively on anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy and sadism, it's impossible to have sympathy or concern for the fate of certain convicted killers."

These are mental disorders. Certainly the idea that the mentally ill should be deprived of life was a very popular one in Nazi Germany. Shall we kill people for being mentally ill, or put them where they cannot get out for the rest of their lives?

Persiflage wrote:

"Needless to say, and lacking all compassion and empathy, assorted convicted murderers, filing appeals, and so forth until age 80...the question remains, do they deserve to do so?"

And that question is a very good one. But surely it is a different question than 1) whether anyone is entitled to deprive another human of life, and 2) whether CP is punishment or revenge.

I agree with you...the appeals process, and attendant activities, is absurdly protracted. That can be remedied. And from where I stand, "lolling about" a confining prison cell, in constant danger from other inmates, no freedoms, capricious restrictions, etc., etc., -- the vagaries of prison life -- are far more "punishment" than CP is. With death, its all over and done with -- no pain, no inconvenience, no punishment.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Strange juxtaposition. Invoking Mills one minute and a Kantian proscription the next."

Nothing "strange" about it.
Mill’s comment: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

This is not an endorsement of CP. CP does not prevent harm to others. It is revenge, extracted AFTER harm is done -- and you better hope the police/prosecutors/jury had the right man!

See a website that deals extensively with the pros and cons of the death penalty below. Needless to say, and lacking all compassion and empathy, assorted convicted murderers, serial killers, etc. generally much prefer to spend their remaining days post-conviction lolling about a 6X8 cell, finding Jesus, writing their memoirs, filing appeals, and so forth until age 80...the question remains, do they deserve to do so?

Having read and studied extensively on anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy and sadism, it's impossible to have sympathy or concern for the fate of certain convicted killers.

In fact, juries are less and less likely here in the US to reach the 100% concurrance vote required for an imposed death sentence in capital murder cases - 1 abstention can nullify/prevent a death sentence and cause the default to life imprisonment.

In such cases, this should in all cases by classified as MANDATORY life, as it is in Michigan. This automatically carries the stipulation of life without parole.

There should never be the possibility of parole in capital murder cases with a guilty finding - but such a sentence can always be reversed with new DNA evidence, etc. that proves innocence. This of course is one powerful agrument against the death penalty.

As it is, convicted killers often spend 10-20 years on death row exhausting the appeals process - many probably die of natural/unnatural causes before the ultimate punishment is rendered (whether based on punishment, revenge, retribution, or an all around well deserved early termination of earthly delights - of which breathing could be considered one).

I have plenty of reservations about the death penalty, but am not convinced it should be abolished altogether .... under certain circumstances, virtually anyone/everyone could kill another human in the heat of the moment and on purpose, and this of course includes self-defense, the defense of loved ones, etc.

In such cases, the spontaneous choice to live is all but made for us by instinct - unless we fall into a fatal mode of self-reflection. This is but one of a number of circumstances/examples where killing is considered perfectly justified by virtually all societies.

I can't agree that abolishment of the death penalty under ALL circumstances indicates a position of moral superiority or offers evidence of a more enlightened cultural/societal position e.g. Western Europe.

On the other hand, violence is thoroughly enculturated & runs amuck in the USA, with rampant gun mania, global arms dealing, etc. leading the way. Without doubt, the pervasiveness of this mentality indicates that we're quite far behind the rest of the modern world in a number of ways!

Rape is most definitely a hate crime, and fits the description to a tee - is in fact defined as such...and in particular, in serial cases.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/?gclid=CLjh1cLK3Z0CFSUMDQod2WwfMg

"Extinguishing life (any life -- I can't get past being a Buddhist, sorry) is either ok, or its wrong..."

on the other hand, the belief a judeochrislamic kind of "afterlife" involving either eternal bliss in heaven (with flowers and virgins and milk and honey and so forth...), or eternal deserved damnation, devalues our 80 or so years here on earth. really makes the death penalty easier to swallow, morally...

schaum, you said,
"DP is not punishment. It is revenge. And, supposedly, the law does not embrace revenge."

that is dead on.

but, per scripture, as with all of the commandments, the penalty for murder is death. the judeochrislamic god is fond of the death penalty. he would say we are way too squeamish about using it. (really, the death penalty is an ancient cultural norm that was captured and codified, but not created, in scripture.)

people rationalize the death penalty, but it is revenge.

when we kill the murderer, what happens? obviously, the crime is not reversed, loved ones are not returned. it does keep a dangerous person off the streets, but so does jail. does it cost society less $ less than life in jail? surprisingly, some studies show, given all the necessary court procedures, the death penalty is about the same or slightly more expensive than life without parole. (this point is debatable.) we could streamline the process to save time/$, but even with all the appeals we still currently execute innocent people. what percent of innocent people killed (and/or $ saved) is acceptable to make sure we get all the bad guys?

another rationalization is that the death penalty must have a deterrent effect murders, but this is not borne out by studies. it turns out murderers are not really being rational or considering the consequences of getting caught when they murder.

so, the only argument left standing is revenge, or as we might euphemize, “closure.” it feels good to kill the killer. it completes some sort of circle. you might call it ancient “justice” – an-eye-for-an-eye.

only america, dictatorships, and islamic countries still have the death penalty. it probably reminds americans of our judeochristian heritage.... conspicuously absent from the death penalty discussion is the judeochrislamic value of forgiveness.

Extinguishing life (any life -- I can't get past being a Buddhist, sorry) is either ok, or its wrong, regardless of whether you are an individual doing murder without license, or a state which HAS licensed itself to do murder.

Posted by: Schaum | October 27, 2009 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It’s not clear that anyone has ever thought of a better principle than Mill's.

Strange juxtaposition. Invoking Mills one minute and a Kantian proscription the next.

Farnaz:

"Then, too, there are "interest groups," weighing in on legislation, etc."

You bet there are! And the more human behavior which can be criminalized, and the more strict "law and order" judges who can be put on benches, the more money there is for private enterprise.

Pam is right, I think: morality cannot be legislated.

Farnaz:

"That, ultimately, is where proportionality resides, no?"

Well, to agree would be to suggest value in the death penalty. And I just don't. Extinguishing life (any life -- I can't get past being a Buddhist, sorry) is either ok, or its wrong, regardless of whether you are an individual doing murder without license, or a state which HAS licensed itself to do murder.

DP is not punishment. It is revenge. And, supposedly, the law does not embrace revenge.

2.

It’s not clear that anyone has ever thought of a better principle than Mill's. But that is precisely the point. Human affairs cannot be decided by an appeal to an infallible rule, expressible in a few words, whose simple application can decide all cases, including whether drugs should be freely available to the entire adult population. Philosophical fundamentalism is not preferable to the religious variety, in my opinion: because the desiderata of human life are many, and often in conflict with one another, mere philosophical inconsistency in policy -—such as permitting the consumption of alcohol while outlawing cocaine -—is not a sufficient argument against that policy. Sometimes we sacrifice freedom for order, and sometimes order for freedom. But once a prohibition has been removed, it is hard to restore, even when the new freedom proves to have been ill-conceived and socially disastrous.

Not all pleasures are of equal significance in/for human existence. Surely you would agree that some human goals are intrinsically worthier of pursuit than others. If this is true, not all freedoms are equal, and neither are all limitations on freedom: some are serious and some trivial. The freedom we cherish —or should cherish— is not merely that of satisfying our appetites, whatever they happen to be. We are not Harold Skimpoles, exclaiming in protest that “Even the butterflies are free!” We are not children who resist all restrictions simply because they are restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted, limitless freedom. We accept limitations to our freedoms for many reasons, not just that of public order. Public exhibitions of necrophilia are quite rightly not permitted, though on your "legalize, regulate, tax, control" platform they should be. A corpse has no interests and cannot be harmed, because it is no longer a person; and no member of the public is harmed if he has agreed to attend such an exhibition.

Schaum,

Does the Eighth Amendment contain a requirement that punishments be somewhat proportional to crimes? Not According to Scalia (and Rehnquist). Would it be unconstitutional to give a life sentence for double-parking? What about a life sentence for possession of cocaine? The issue presented here was one in which the Court (5 to 4) upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for the first-time offense of possession of cocaine (albeit a large amount of cocaine). Scalia argued that the Eighth Amendment did not address the proportionality of punishments at all.
--------------------------------------
Funny, you should mention double parking. The number of possible driving infractions, staff for "detecting" them have risen exponentially in New York City. We could, soon, I suspect receive life sentences for too darkly tinted windows, if the city could somehow profit from our long-term imprisonment.

Did you read the argument of Nixon, et al, the appellants? I understand the eighth amendment issue. On all other points, I fail to see fault with Nixon, thus far. Or, with O'Connor. There is inadequate research to show that executing a seventeen-year-old differs significantly from executing a person of eighteen.

In all respects, Simmons is guilty of capital murder. It seems to me that O'Connor agrees. If the proportionality issue is to obtain, it would have to go to the death penalty itself, it would seem, not to this particular application.

Yet, as O'Connor points out, there must be a cut-off. There's the conundrum. I suspect part of the difficulty will always lie with the DP, itself. That, ultimately, is where proportionality resides, no?

1.

Pam:

There are two kinds of arguments in favor of legalizing the use of narcotic and stimulant drugs are twofold: philosophical and pragmatic. Both are mistaken, I believe, and both miss the point.

The philosophic argument is that, in a free society, adults should be permitted to do whatever they please, provided that they are prepared to take the consequences of their own choices and that they cause no direct harm to others. The locus classicus for this point of view is John Stuart Mill’s comment: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This radical individualism allows society no part whatever in shaping, determining, or enforcing a moral code: in short, we have nothing in common but our contractual agreement not to interfere with one another as we go about seeking our private pleasures.

In practice, it is exceedingly difficult to make people assume the consequences of their own actions -—as they must, if Mill’s principle is to serve as a philosophical guide to policy. Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them -—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers. No man, except possibly religious hermits and solitaries, is an island; and so it is virtually impossible for Mill’s principle to apply to any human action whatever, let alone shooting up heroin or smoking crack. Such a principle is virtually useless in determining what should or should not be permitted

"Prisons are big business."

Yes, but for private enterprise, not for states. Privately run prisons are for profit, and make it by feeding prisoners very inexpensive-to-produce food of very low quality, in small portions, as well as by skimping on clothing, bedding, etc.
------------------------------------
Sure, but big business for private enterprise means revenues for states. Then, too, there are "interest groups," weighing in on legislation, etc.

Farnaz:

"Prisons are big business."

Yes, but for private enterprise, not for states. Privately run prisons are for profit, and make it by feeding prisoners very inexpensive-to-produce food of very low quality, in small portions, as well as by skimping on clothing, bedding, etc.

Farnaz:

Basically, O'Connor held the view that American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, especially examining domestic issues. She seemed particularly anxious that America create a 'good impression' in regarding and considering decisions in other nations.

Scalia -- predictably -- gave short shrift to that position. I think it was in an argument with Breyer (maybe Souter) that he said something like 'who cares what some judge in Zimbabewe thinks about what Americans believe.' In writing the minority dissent in the juvenile death penalty case, he opened his argument by lamenting the "arrogance" of judges who cite international law rather than the U.S. Constitution they are sworn to uphold. "Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he asked, in arguing that legislatures or voters should make those decisions.

Does the Eighth Amendment contain a requirement that punishments be somewhat proportional to crimes? Not According to Scalia (and Rehnquist). Would it be unconstitutional to give a life sentence for double-parking? What about a life sentence for possession of cocaine? The issue presented here was one in which the Court (5 to 4) upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for the first-time offense of possession of cocaine (albeit a large amount of cocaine). Scalia argued that the Eighth Amendment did not address the proportionality of punishments at all.

Actually, Pam, when crime rates go down, as they did, in New York State, the state loses money. Criminals have been serving time at Rikers while upstate jails have been closing. Criminalization and recriminalization have already begun here.

Prisons are big business. Look at California. Just read Nixon's appeal to the Supreme Court in Roper vs. Simmons. Legally, it seemed very strong to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

Interestingly, new brain research does seem to argue for special consideration for teens convicted of a capital offense. The argument is not hard and fast as of yet from what I can so far see in my five minutes of research. Moreover, there may well be sub-classes of adults, hitherto unidentified for whom a similar argument could be made.

I think the Court may have acted politically here, may have acted more in accordance with the prejudices of the majority. Nixon's argument was very strong.

IMO, get rid of CP, and you solve the problem.

"States are always trying to criminalize or recriminalize when crime goes down since they then begin to suffer the effects of job loss, etc. So, why not use jails for life sentences, give up executions, and keep guards employed."

LOL. You've got to be kidding! Prisons are stuffed to the gills, holding far more than they were designed for. We regularly let people go through parole or commutation, many of whom should never be let out, because we just don't have the room.

This is mainly a product of our attempts to legislate morality, through drug laws, prostitution laws, and the like. We apparently learned nothing from Prohibition.

Legalize, regulate, tax, control. Stop making pimps and drug lords rich, and addicts criminals.

Schaum,

I'm about to sign off, but I think I'm going to reread Scalia's opinion. I wonder, too, about arguments concerning international law. It's an interesting question, but I think O'Connor was right on this.

Awful thing, capital punishment. Doesn't seem to accomplish very much.

Schaum,

Re: the Simmons case

I don't know that either O'Connor's opinion or Kennedy's added anything to the discussion. I found little new in the amicaes briefs either.

What troubled me most in O'Connor's opinion is what has always troubled me on this issue. On the one hand, she argues that eighteen is not a magic number; on the other, that we must establish an age at which capital punishment would stand in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

It seems no matter how one looks at it, the simplest remedy would be for us to strike down capital punishment once and for all.

Otherwise, we do wind up, I think, with all the problems O'Connor outlines. There is no reason for us to believe that juries are any less capable of sentencing teens when it comes to capital punishment than they are of sentencing adults.

Moreover, as she notes, if anyone's crime ever warranted the death penalty, it was that of Simmons.

It's time, I think, for us to get rid of this national embarrassment once and for all. States are always trying to criminalize or recriminalize when crime goes down since they then begin to suffer the effects of job loss, etc. So, why not use jails for life sentences, give up executions, and keep guards employed. More humane treatment of prisoners, in general, an effort at rehabilitation would be good, but may be too much to ask.

Schaum,

I read the dissent. I think it was most notable for her disagreement with Scalia's idea that international law has no place in evaluating Eighth Amendment claims.
------------------------------------
That surely was notable! What did you make of it? What do you think of it?

Farnaz:

Yes, I read the dissent. I think it was most notable for her disagreement with Scalia's idea that international law has no place in evaluating Eighth Amendment claims.

And no, I'm not irish-scotch. I'm German on both sides.

Schaum,

O'Connor wrote the opinion for the dissent. It is interesting to compare it to Kennedy's for the Court.

Yes, O'Connor. Have you read her opinion?

Of course Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist all dissented. I was a little surprised that O'Connor did as well.

Schaum,

In Oregon, for example, when an intentional murder is executed on a person 14 or younger, it is aggravated first degree murder
-------------------------
On a related note, are you aware that the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for those under eighteen?

I'm sure you can imagine at least one of the dissenting justices. But I think you will be surprised to learn, that is, if you don't already know, who penned the dissenting opinion.

Walter:

As an example:

Intentional murder for any personal aggrandisement is murder in the first degree.

In Oregon, for example, when an intentional murder is executed on a person 14 or younger, it is aggravated first degree murder.

WalterIFC:

"aren't all murders hate crimes?"

No.

Most murders are anger/passion/revenge motivated, and express personal, and therefore narrow, rage.

Murder, among other crimes, that identify entire isolated groups -- gays, Jews, Arabs, cops, etc. -- for intimidation, warning, threat, etc., are murders, etc., with an entirely different and much broader purpose and rationale. They are serious aggravating factors which make the crimes much more serious.

You are aware that it has long been possible (and frequently is) to enhance first-degree murder charges with aggravating factors...

males' generally inhumane treatment of women is a historical artifact of men being stronger than women. that's all. historically (hunter-gatherer through dark ages) men made the rules. these rules became cultural norms. these norms got written down in scripture, institutionalizing the "women are inferior nad possessions" idea. for centuries people (men especially) thought that's the way god made us.

gotta go - redskins...

Re: My previous post

The difference between hate crimes and crimes otherwise motivated does not go merely to motive but to potential consequences.

Hanging someone whom I don't much care for is different from hanging Bill because he is black.

Isn't it?

Actually, it seems that many of these week's bloggers have taken the position held by Walter.

Others, perhaps the majority, believe that violence against "classes" or groups of people is categorically different from other forms of assault.

re "hate crimes":
i agree that intentionally seeking out a gay (or black, hispanic, left-handed) to kill feels somehow morally worse than just killing a "random" person. but i don't think the legal repercussions should be different. aren't all murders hate crimes?

sure, laws consider "motive" and "intent" when sentencing, but that's more about whether it was accidental, intentional, premeditated etc...not about why he killed. even considerations about motive (which could be considered a "why" question) are about whether there was motive, not what the motive was.

it's against the law to murder, harass, even discriminate against women, black people, gay people, fat people.

imagine if i, a lifelong redskins fan, went to philadelphia and killed someone because he was an eagles fan. is that a hate crime? worthy of extra punishment? i know it's a silly comparison, but you see how irrelevant my hate for the eagles would be to my guilt.

having said all that in the spirit of "if i ran the zoo", i suppose that in reality, where we already have "hate laws" for other minorities, it's only fair to extend them to gay people.

Schaum,

But with regard to the Brits who are leaving: had a phone con recently with a friend who moved out of London and into Greenwich because of the rise in the level of hate crimes in central London. His take, and I agree with him, is that the sluggishness of government in enacting legislation to punish hate crimes simply leaves the strong impression that hate crimes are of little to no importance to the government: which is tantamount to governmental permission.
----------------------------
Yes, this is an old "explanation" on the part of the British government. Until recently, they've had "difficulty" calculating the number of antisemitic hate crimes, since they lacked the wherewithal to distinguish them from simple criminal violence. Ditto attacks on gays, which, of course, are less numerous.

DEAR Brits,

LOL! Americans are not quite so stupid as you think. Ditto, the rest of the planet.

Arminius/Armenius:

Bye. Remember: don't drink and drive.

Farnaz:

"But some Brits are leaving."

As I am leaving the US...European attitudes toward equal/civil rights are far more evolved than the US. I feel better, safer, and accepted there.

But with regard to the Brits who are leaving: had a phone con recently with a friend who moved out of London and into Greenwich because of the rise in the level of hate crimes in central London. His take, and I agree with him, is that the sluggishness of government in enacting legislation to punish hate crimes simply leaves the strong impression that hate crimes are of little to no importance to the government: which is tantamount to governmental permission.

Curious. The only insult is 'alcoholic'. Nothing else. BORING! I'm out of here, until you dain bramaged people can come up with a better insult.

Farnaz:

Duel? I'm having a battle of wits with an alcoholic who is unarmed. Hardly a duel. And certainly requires no effort.

I find it amusing.

Schaum,

Agreed on all points. I did not mean to suggest a mass emigration from England akin to that which we see in France. But some Brits are leaving.

This is amusing as the Brits have also acquired Israel's star soccer player, but what can you do.

Personally, I hold my people responsible. You cannot reason with a wild animal. You cannot educate it. There are two strategies: verbal and physical self-defense, not necessarily in that order.

The Black Civil Rights movement in this country demonstrated the efficacy of these strategies. It's time we moved forward, high time.

Schaum,

Watching (reading) this duel betwixt you and Arminius, I am inspired to inquire: Are you, too, of Scots-Irish descent?

Farnaz:

When I talk to my British friends, I get no sense of panic on their part, no sense that they feel themselves under imminent threat. Certainly there is nothing remotely comparable to the panic which has gripped French Jewry in recent years in the wake of an outbreak of anti-Semitic incidents.

The question that I ask myself is: Why not? Is it possible that the ominous signs that I find in headlines from England are purely a function of being far away and lacking the experience of every day life carrying on pretty much as before? Or, on the other hand, could it be that my friends live such insular lives that they are out of touch with trends in British society. I certainly hope it is the former, but I am doubtful.

Last year the number of anti-Semitic attacks in England rose alarmingly by over 40% -- the steepest rise in Europe -- to its highest level ever. But it is not the level of street attacks that I find most frightening. Rather it is the openly expressed loathing for Israel and Jews among a large swath of Britain's elites. It was the complete collapse of German elites before Hitler and his lumpenproletariat followers that allowed Hitler's rise to power in the most civilized nation in Europe. The German elites were infected with the same anti-Semitism as the uneducated sign painter.

I do not for a moment wish to compare the situation in Germany in 1933 with Britain today. Nor do I think for a moment that the two countries are remotely the same. But one of the lessons of Germany between the two world wars is how lethal the mix between lower class and elite anti-Semitism can be.

Arminius/Armenius:

"As a professor at my college was famous for saying, "Obviously, you have the mind of an earthworm!"

Fascinating. I would never have thought they allowed alcoholics in clown college.

Anyone have an opinion on either the article posted by Schaum or the comment from Saperstein's thread posted by yours truly?

Schaum,

Thanks for the post. Needless to say, I'm sick and tired of the endless antisemitic posts denying the wretched reality of antisemitism both here and abroad.

The exodus of Jews from France continues, and, from what I hear, some have begun to leave England.

Ironically, the EU, rather than protect its Jewish citizens has given them advice on precautions THEY should take. Hilarious, given that the governments of these nations foment the hatred that causes the violence.

Sound familiar?

"And yet, old drunk, it is you who have come back to us. Of your own free will. Or did your mistress Gabriel Kelly tell you to do that? Give her a lick for all of us."

And I thank you, Schaumie of the twin propellers, for proving my point, you have no defense, you merely continue to shoot yourself in the foot. Can you do nothing right? Have you no spine, no mind at all? As a professor at my college was famous for saying, "Obviously, you have the mind of an earthworm!"

From HAARETZ.COM….

Hate crime is on the rise in Europe as well as in the US.

Anti-Semitism and hate crimes rose last year in several places throughout Europe, according to a report released on Wednesday by the American advocacy group Human Rights First. The report says more than 50 people were killed in Russia because of their ethnic origin, and Britain has seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitism and hate crimes since the terror attacks in London on July 7, 2005.

The report was published before an international conference to open in Bucharest on Thursday, sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The conference will discuss the struggle against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and xenophobia. The OSCE has 55 member-countries, including Israel.

The director of Human Rights First, Maureen Byrnes, said a number of governments, including France, Germany and Britain, had taken steps against hate crimes, but other countries remained indifferent. The report states that those who attack Jews in Europe use criticism of Israel and its policies to justify their actions. It says Muslims are attacked in the street as a response to Islamic terror by people who see every Muslim as a legitimate target.

The report also said violence against homosexuals was no less serious than racist hatred. Only two countries in Europe, Britain and Sweden, document homophobic crimes separately, though hatred of gays came to the fore in 2006, among other instances, at Gay Pride parades in Warsaw, Moscow, Bucharest, Riga and Tallinn.

The report focuses on five European countries: Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. It noted a sharp rise in anti-Semitism in Britain as well as a rise in Ukraine and France. The number of anti-Semitic crimes in Germany remained stable in 2006 after two years of rises.

Hate crimes in London motivated by religion climbed by as much as 600percent following the July 7, 2005 bombings on the London mass transport system.

The report notes that religious and ethnic minorities are subject to "particularly lethal violence" in areas of the former Soviet Union: 54 cases of murder and 540 cases of serious violence stemming from racial hatred were documented in Russia in 2006. The numbers were 31 and 413 the previous year.

In several cases, those accused of serious hate crimes were released by a court. In Ukraine, where precise data was not collected, reports indicated a sharp rise in crimes against foreigners, particularly blacks.

In France, hate crimes fell by 10 percent, among other things, due to major efforts by the government. However, the number of anti-Semitic crimes rose by 6.6 percent in 2006.

Armenius/Armenius wrote:

"no, not at all, you defeated yourselves by your own failings. Does the phrase 'Hoist on your own petard' mean anything to you?"

And yet, old drunk, it is you who have come back to us. Of your own free will. Or did your mistress Gabriel Kelly tell you to do that? Give her a lick for all of us.

Here are the comments, referenced in my post below. Any thoughts, anyone?
---------------------------------------

David Saperstein says, "We know all too well that hate crimes are different from other crimes. They are more than individual murders, beatings, and assaults. Rather, they seek to terrorize entire groups of Americans."

All hate crimes legally recognized and punished as such in the United States have one thing in common. Men can be victims of these crimes as individuals in a way that terrorizes the whole class of men sharing the same category as the victim and lowers their status as citizens. Yes, women may be included in the targeted category, but it is men whose constitutional entitlement to equal protection of the law compels the justice system to respond to their victimization.

During the early days of lobbying for the Hate Crimes Act and the Hate Crime Statistics Act that made the incidence of such terrorist crime visible in federal crime statistics,in a meeting of a coalition of civil rights advocacy organizations, a woman member spoke to the need to recognize rape as a hate crime that terrorizes all women, limits their freedom of movement, and demeans their status in the society. Unlike other types of assault, it should be recognized as a crime directed against the physical characteristic by which men view women as Other and inferior to themselves. If men rape men, the clear intent of the act is to demean them by treating them as women.

When this woman proposed legal acknowledgement that rape is over-qualified to be treated as a hate crime, a politically loaded act against women as a class, her male colleagues turned to her as one and protested that rape was merely a "sex" crime, not a hate crime! They urged, with the perverse logic of the dominant group, that the sheer volume of rapes would "dilute" the importance of real hate crimes, i.e. those that could hurt men. Moreover, they said, the bill would never pass if rape were included. And finally, they threatened that Senator Helms would attach an anti-abortion amendment to the Hate Crimes Act if women insisted on covering rape as a hate crime. The irony of using one weapon against women's reproductive organs to defend another seemed to escape their notice.
Continues

Continued
So, to this day, if a woman is raped by a man who calls her by the n-word, the k-word, or the d-word, that attack may be punished as a hate crime. But if the rapist merely calls her a b-word that is in common use everywhere, that is not a hate crime no matter how it damages her and the status of all women who get the message that merely by being a woman, she was "asking for it."

I would challenge David Saperstein to justify the exclusion of rape from punishment as a hate crime that advantages all men by permitting any woman to be terrorized and demeaned as an individual rather than as rape defines her - a member of "an entire group of Americans" that includes half of all Americans.

Posted by: Amanita1 | October 25, 2009 6:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And Schaumie did say,
And, frankly, I think you are so desperate for attention that you have manufactured all the other "Arminius/Armenius" manifestations to draw attention to yourself, and give yourself something to publicly whine about.

Ah, Shaumie, congratulations! Your mistress/owner has granted you a second propeller on your beanie! Ain't ya proud?!?

Anyone with more than a few brain cells to string together knows that the false Arminius posts came from you, on order from She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.... at least obeyed by you.

My God, what a sniveling, arse-licking, hiding in the shadows of a coward you are.

My sword is laughter, my shield is truth, and you craven, pathetic people, barely sheathed in your schoolyard taunts, are not a decent challenge at all. And the saddest thing of all is that I did not defeat you - no, not at all, you defeated yourselves by your own failings. Does the phrase 'Hoist on your own petard' mean anything to you?

Is this really all you have? Is it?

If I may venture briefly back to the topic, I have been surprised to find on Saperstein's thread and elsewhere so much objection to hate crimes legislation. It is not quite deja vu of the impromptu discussion we had here awhile ago, but close. Somehow, people do not seem to grasp the difference between attacks based on group membership and those that are otherwise motivate.

On the other hand, I was very impressed with a post by one, Anandita, who provided a brief history of objections to having rape classified as a hate crime. I'd be interested in knowing the opinions of others on this.

Again, her post is on Saperstein's thread.

Arminius/Armenius:

"I'll be back......."

Careful on your way out, buddy -- we don't want you to slip and fall into an empty gin bottle.

"All the insults you can manage is to accuse me of being a drunk! "

Actually, the proof is your own admission, many posts ago, that you drink too much.

And, frankly, I think you are so desperate for attention that you have manufactured all the other "Arminius/Armenius" manifestations to draw attention to yourself, and give yourself something to publicly whine about.

One final Parthian shot....

There is an Irish saying:
"God created whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world."

The same is also said of the Scots.

Timete furorem Celticum.

Well, Schaumie, propeller beanie and all, and also She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.....

I thank you profoundly for the laughs! All the insults you can manage is to accuse me of being a drunk! If I am - and it is so painfully obvious that you have not a shred of proof of that, pun intended - then I would stand in good company: Winston Churchill, Ataturk, Hemingway, possibly Alexander the Great, and so many others.

So go ahead, throw me off, for the third time, since you are all - yes, all, Farnaz, you and your arse-lickers - complete cowards, unable to fight this Celt on any terms.

I'll be back.......

Hi, Schaumie! I see your mommy sent you back outside to play. Do you really wear a multi-colored beanie with a propeller on top?

Anyway, here's some further education:

"There are more old drunks than there are old doctors."
-Willie Nelson

"For we could not now take time for further search (to land our ship), our victuals being much spent, especially our beer."
-from the log of THE MAYFLOWER

"Many battles have been fought and won by soldiers nourished on beer."
-Frederick the Great

"From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world."
-Saint Arnold of Metz, The patron Saint of Brewers

"On the eighth day, God created beer."
- Arminius

The Persians decide upon important matters by first getting drunk and debating and coming to a decision while drunk. Then, the next day when \they are sober they deliberate and decide whether they want to stick to the decision made. If they decide yes, they go through with it. If they
decide against it, they drop it, and ostensibly go back to square one. He also says they do the opposite, if they initially deliberate sober, they’ll make their final decision drunk.
- Herodutus, in his Histories, Book I, chapter 133

WalterIFC:

i took it to mean i asked others to stay away from JACOBY's thread. how would my asking farnaz not to bother us over on wolpe's(?) thread have anything to do with a dearth of posts on jacoby's thread?

as far as it not being my "right" to ask farnaz to not to post there, of course i have no such constitutional right... of course anyone is free to post anywhere.

the case in question, we had gone to that unused thread so as not to bother you guys over here on susan's thread. she followed us over there. certainly her right. by the time i asked farnaz to "go away" she was heavily into the insults and accusations. insults are her right too, i suppose, though they lead to a dearth of posts.
-------------------------------------
Walter, I cannot count the number of times that I requested ARminius to lay off the ad hominem arguments. You engaged in the same as did Pam.

Frankly, this whining is just the sort of thing I had in mind in my earlier post. Either we call it quits, or, really, you can blog to yourself. I will also be happy to reference that thread, we can calculate the number of insults hurled by whom and at whom.

As well, both you and Pamsm followed me to a dead thread of Susan's after we agreed to go our separate ways.

If you choose to stay here and accuse, then you open the door for anyone else to do likewise.

I'd suggest we all put a lid on it.

Schaum:

I emailed David Waters with your suggestion, but he said WaPo would continue to work on the problem. I still can't understand why a Technical Department should have to deal with a matter such as this for months. However, I'm sure David is doing his best, and I'll wait until tomorrow to see if the problem is corrected.

Thanks again for your help!

Perhaps Armenius's biggest problem (other than his drinking) is that he just doesn't get enough attention from his mistress, Gabriel Kelly.

They say hit dogs are the ones that howl...

Farnaz:

"First, I have no "associates." Second, I have not "mention[ed]" you. Third, I have never asked that you "stay off Susan's blog" or off anyone else's."

And the same is true of me. I don't particularly care where old drunks go, or what they say.

More alcoholic paranoia.

walter-in-fallschurch,

You and Pamsm asked me to stay away from a thread. I agreed, providing you and she would recuse yourselves from this one.

Now that we are done, I assume, with attacks on the "OT," while valorizing its Christian counterpart, with slurs like "juchrislamic" which say nothing of any religion, but speak volumes about the author of the coinage, I think we can dispense with "blog border security," don't you?

False accusations will also have to go, though.

Sound reasonable?

Arminius:

"Well, now, since Schaumie has been accusing me of being an alcoholic in every other post, per instructions from his owner, She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed"

Your typical alcoholic's paranoia is ammo -- and proof -- enough. But thanks for playing.

Yup, 'tis I. Beware of imitations that appear regularly on threads inhabited by certain individuals here. I have stayed off of Susan's blog because Farnaz and associates asked it. But they continue to mention me in their posts in such loving tones that I just had to reply... stay tuned, and grab yer six-pack, it's gonna be fun!
----------------------------
First, I have no "associates." Second, I have not "mention[ed]" you. Third, I have never asked that you "stay off Susan's blog" or off anyone else's.

What I do ask is that you stay on some topic unrelated to your problems with me. The ranting, bigotry, etc., that has characterized this thread has been of no use to anyone.

Hi, Daniel ITLD,

Yup, 'tis I. Beware of imitations that appear regularly on threads inhabited by certain individuals here. I have stayed off of Susan's blog because Farnaz and associates asked it. But they continue to mention me in their posts in such loving tones that I just had to reply... stay tuned, and grab yer six-pack, it's gonna be fun!

Arminius

Is that really you?

Where have you been?

I don't have much to say on this subject. I have not given it much thought and it doesn't seem to relate to religion.

However, with regards to your comment:

There was an episode of Seinfeld, in which Jerry made the claim to Elaine that most people are not good looking enough to date, and that about 85% of the population is un-datable. So Elaine said, "Well then, how do you explain all these people getting together?"

His answer, "alcohol."

Well, now, since Schaumie has been accusing me of being an alcoholic in every other post, per instructions from his owner, She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, I thought it would be nice to educate him in the subject, and, at the same time, supply him with ammo!

"24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case - it CAN'T be a coincidence!
- Anonymous

"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer.
Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does
not go nearly as well with pizza."
-Dave Barry

"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart

"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like
to pee alot."
-Capital Brewery, Middleton, WI

"No soldier can fight unless he is properly fed on beef and beer."
-John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough

"Make sure that the beer - four pints a week - goes to the troops under fire
before any of the parties in the rear get a drop."
-Winston Churchill to his Secretary of War, 1944

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her."
-W.C. Fields

"Everybody has to believe in something.....I believe I'll have another drink."
-W.C. Fields

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Benjamin Franklin

"...there is only one game at the heart of America and that is baseball,
and only one beverage to be found sloshing at the depths of our national
soul and that is beer."
-Peter Richmond

"Beer needs baseball, and baseball needs beer - it has always been thus."
-Peter Richmond

"[I recommend]… bread, meat, vegetables and beer."
-Sophocles' philosophy of a moderate diet

"This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine
means of consumption... Beer!"
-Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, Friar Tuck

"Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world."
-Kaiser Wilhelm

"Beer: So much more than just a breakfast drink."
-Whitstran Brewery sign

WalterIFC:

"how would my asking farnaz not to bother us over on wolpe's(?) thread have anything to do with a dearth of posts on jacoby's thread?"

It doesn't. Why are you trying to make an issue of this? We are talking about your unwillingness to do what you ask others to do.

Insults about alcoholic arminius and medieval peter? Hardly insults. Observations. And I stand by them. Arminius drinks far too much, and Peter's points of view are throwbacks to the dark ages.

schaum, you said,
"Yes, I stand corrected. You did not ask anyone not to post on Jacoby's thread(s)...you took yourselves to another thread, certainly your right, and asked others to stay away from you on that threat, most certainly not your right."

well, yes - since we were talking about the dearth of posts on JACOBY's thread...

when you said,
"You left, and asked others to stay away. That was your choice."

i took it to mean i asked others to stay away from JACOBY's thread. how would my asking farnaz not to bother us over on wolpe's(?) thread have anything to do with a dearth of posts on jacoby's thread?

as far as it not being my "right" to ask farnaz to not to post there, of course i have no such constitutional right... of course anyone is free to post anywhere.

the case in question, we had gone to that unused thread so as not to bother you guys over here on susan's thread. she followed us over there. certainly her right. by the time i asked farnaz to "go away" she was heavily into the insults and accusations. insults are her right too, i suppose, though they lead to a dearth of posts.

and, now, why the insults about "alcoholic arminius" and "medieval peter"? what's that got to do with this?

WalterIFC

Yes, I stand corrected. You did not ask anyone not to post on Jacoby's thread(s)...you took yourselves to another thread, certainly your right, and asked others to stay away from you on that threat, most certainly not your right. That displays a surprising arrogance in you that I had not suspected, Walter...more like the behavior of the alcoholic Arminius3142. (Note the correct spelling.)

I repeat: if you are so weary of the posting and arguing that takes place on this thread, and think the senseless arguing in which you engage with the medieval throwback Peter Huff to be an improvement, why not stay there and away from here.

schaum, you said,
"You left, and asked others to stay away."

huh? i have NEVER asked anyone to stay away from any of jacoby's threads. are you thinking of the peter/pam conversation that we took to a quiet thread (not by susan)? i did ask farnaz to leave us alone over there. but i never asked peter/pam et al to stop posting on susan's thread.

WalterIFC

Bulls**t, Walter. If you like those conversations, you should be posting here. You left, and asked others to stay away. That was your choice.

Now, why don't you stay away? If you like the conversations so much, contribute to the conversations instead of making wild (and totally erroneous) accusations about who is using whose screen name. And to be entirely accurate, ArmEnius is not the same as ArmInius. Therefore, nobody was stealing that old alcoholic's screen name. Get real, Walter.

schaum,
i like conversations about religion and government and human rights and morals. i love susan's rational unabashed atheism and associated views on god in government. this thread is/was generally the most active. there are/were generally great posts from several regulars, farnaz included.

i guess i like to go where the action is, and that is/was here. i wish the entire "on faith" site would have a "recent comments" list on the home page, with links to the, say, 10 most recent comments. (like on the www.realclimate.org website.)

WalterIFC:

Curious. If you are 'weary' of this thread, why do you keep coming back? Lurking, I think it is called, when you log into a thread and do not post. What is the fascination for you?

"Odd, the dearth of bloggers on Susan's thread. You know, I think, we've all grown a'weary of the ranting and bigotry."

i think people have grown a'weary of all the name games and insults from one or two of the regulars.

farnaz, you offer so much in the way of erudition, historical context, providing the other side of the story, and sometimes even wit. it can be enjoyable. i admit you are one of the reasons i originally found this blog interesting.

but then there's the incredibly touchy, mean farnaz who insults and belittles and blusters (though you claim to hate it, it's what you do). conversations with/involving you can be stimulating, challenging (in a good way), and fruitful - and then it gets derailed. out come the personal attacks and speculation, insults games and histrionics. even as i write this i brace myself for the barrage.

maybe that's all fun for you. maybe i take it too seriously or personally, but i've grown weary of it. i suspect others have too. anyway, that's my theory on the dearth of bloggers.

Schaum,

Praises for Sebastian, loyal pup! I believe you mentioned Stolberg before....

Odd, the dearth of bloggers on Susan's thread. You know, I think, we've all grown a'weary of the ranting and bigotry. Speaking of which, if you've got time and are of a mind, check out Kessler, Saperstein, and Spong's essays and threads.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/

I hope Susan can bring that excellent mind of hers to bear in composing her next column. Elevating the discourse is not always a simple matter on blogs. One must write in a way that invites several perspectives, differences of opinion, while maintaining a degree of intellectual rigor. Time-consuming....

I sometimes wonder if it might not be a good idea for all of those interested in Susan's thinking to reread or read one of her books and deal with the issues they address. Alternatively, she might post one of her more "high-brow" articles. Some of them are anthologized in college texts....

Farnaz:

Oh, Sebastian is happy wherever I am. Christian and I have settled on Stolberg, I think, about 10km from Aachen, which is a city I love. And 40 minutes from Cologne.

Hi Schaum,

Thanks for your reply. For some reason, I thought Sebastian older. Have you broached the subject of the move with him? Have you settled on a city first? Maybe, if you have, you should spend some time there first...?

Sorry about the affaire de Labia/Leah. I would be honored if you name your next female pup Farnaz!

Farnaz:

You can use the same email address. You lose nothing.

Lived in Munich for 3 months years ago. Had to return to the US, or I'd probably still be there.

Sebastian is now an only child. He's a year and eight months old. Gave his girlfriend, Labia, to my sister, who promptly renamed her Leah. Since I used to have a scottie named Leah, I guess this has become a family name. That was also years ago, in an apartment in Chicago. Next door neighbor, who was a Polish survivor/escapee, was named Leah, and took EXTREME exception to sharing her name with a dog.

test

Trulyfool wrote:

"Anything that limits hate is welcome."

Thou sayest a true thing.

Hi Schaum,

Thanks again! But what I'm most concerned about is my email address. When I registered, WaPo picked up my email name, although I requested only my first name.

If I re-register, would I be able to keep the same email address? Or might doing that re-create the problem?

I've tried signing out of WaPo and signing back on, but that didn't help.

I think maybe I might need to re-register for OnFaith only....

At all events, I'll wait until Tuesday for David Waters' reply. Then, I'll just try fiddling around. (Why, I wonder, has this gone on for months? Why WaPo hasn't corrected it....)
--------------------------------
Glad Sebastian had fun outdoors, sad that he had less within! Btw., how old is he? Is he your only dog?

Have you discussed the impending move to Germany with him? How does he feel about relocating so far away? Have you settled on a new location yet?

If I recall correctly, you once wrote that you had lived there for awhile. When was that, if I may ask, and where did you live?

Farnaz

For the right wing, freedom of speech is a license for shouting down adversaries -- 'unamerican' ones. Nothing more potent to make them salivate than the notion of 'Liberty'. Theirs, to define who isn't one of them.

It's no particular surprise, then, that persecuting hate crimes as an intensifying offense sticks in their craw. '(Anti-)social motive' carries no weight, just as 'social inequity' as a problem to be addressed is seen as a vaporous excuse designed to allow whining by those who can't make it as 'Americans'.

Anything that limits hate is welcome.

Farnaz:

Yes, I agree: if you can log on under another name and/or if you are able to log onto other threads at WAPO, using your existing name, the problem lies with them, not you.

You can have, hold and keep as many screen names as you want. You will not give up or obliterate the one you have now.

Hope the day you are having is as glorious as the one here. Absolutely outstanding! Took Sebastian for a long walk on the nature trail, which delights him...and he came home full of briars, nettles, and other fall-oriented detritus, which has to be combed out of his coat--and which does NOT delight him.

Hi Schaum,

Thanks for the reply!

I just emailed David Waters with your suggestion.

Hopefully, he'll get back to me. I've spoken to a couple of other people about this, and they advised me much as you did. They did point out, though, that whatever the problem, it has to be at WaPo's end. Do you agree?

I don't mean to be critical of WaPo, but I can't understand why this problem with two threads should be ongoing for months.

At any rate...this may sound like a dumb question, but if I sign on under a slightly modified name, can I still keep my email address? I mean, I don't only use it for WaPo (!), and I don't want to go through the hassle of notifying all and sundry of a change in my email address.

Thanks again!

Farnaz

Farnaz:

Create a new screen name and log in under it. Determine whether you can post a test under that name. If you can, then that would indicate that your regular name has been blocked. If you cannot, then it would seem that your ip address has been blocked. I don't know what you can do about that, if WAPO says they have not blocked it.

Let me know..

Hi Schaum,

In light of your computer expertise, I was wondering if you could help me with this.

For several months, I have been unable to post on two threads on this blog. I've emailed David Waters twelve (12) times, but, thus far, he hasn't been able to correct the problem.

Here is the relevant text from his last email to me:

"So far we can find no reason your comments shouldn't be posting on that blog. Neither your email address nor your IP address have been blocked, banned, filtered, etc. If there was something wrong with the interface, it would block you from all blogs, not just FGS. We'll keep looking."

At all events, I was wondering if there were anything I could do to help remedy the problem. I've written him to ask, but figured I'd check with you while I awaited his reply.

Thanks!

Farnaz

As an SABRA-America i was raised by AFRO-Americans. And i [WE] would say the "N" word between each other. But it's intention was not a "HATE" thing. But there are those who would make a Mountain out of such a pebble!

Note: We used to Call non-Straights FAGGITS. Yet the word "QUEER" is better. But thats not HATE.

Note:some HATE Peanut Butter, yet some LOVE peanut Butter! Soo

VOTE: STOP CONGRESS! STOP IN THE NAME OF SECULAR-LAWS!

PRESERVE "OUR" SECULAR LAW(s) as though National Security!

So, NO Congress! Do not Fix What is not Broken. Or else Ye risk Destroying the "HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS" (national & internationally) wordings.

Congess needs to entertain, CREATE JOBS!

CREATE JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

Important: It has come to a point where Ordinary [True Blue] American(s) will start rebelling against the SYSTEM, the Status Qoe!

Riot Police will not stop the Coming REVOLUION! Only Congress Can. Note: Forget the President in this potential Powder-Kegg of a realistic , yet Prophetic, scenerio, via OUR Insight & Pattern Recognition as "Signals" for You Humans!

Hint: What is the opposite of HATE? Opposite of BIGOT?

If Religion can Spoil Everything, then "QUEERS" or is it the word "FAGGIT" can spoil things too?! Note: the Word "GAY" is a hijacked-Straight-Word; and should be made illegal for GAYS/Non-Straights to use in Public. Time for them to get creative.

PS: In most Cases; A HUMAN-WRONG against a HUe{MATE-RiGHT is forgivenable; but not All Cases! Saying "QUEERS" should not be out-lawed.

REMEMBER:FACT: SEX is Not LOVE; Life IS Love!

Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment
and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people
in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.

Why? Because they're evil GOP bastards!

"It isn't the people who vote that count. Its the peoople who count the vote."
--Josef Stalin

WalterIFC:

But it isn't the same. The murder of a black person by a nazi is clearly a white-supremacists's gesture that is deliberately intended to intimidate/threaten/harass/throw fear into ALL black people. That is an aggravating factor. It is not like a white killing a white, or a black killing a black.

when i say i oppose the idea of extra penalties for hate crimes, i mean all "hate crimes" - even those directed at race, color, religion, gender etc... not just sexual orientation.

if a nazi (gay or otherwise...) kills a black person it should be the same penalty as if he killed a white person. maybe hate crime legislation is like affirmative action, which i oppose in principle, but understand the need.

Good video of a WWII soldier talking about rights for all people, including gays....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/philip-spooner-video-wwii_n_329446.html

WalterIFC:

Indeed, we DO punish thoughts as well as actions. It is a crime to conspire to commit felonious acts. Conspiracies are prosecutable offenses, regardless of whether they are acted out.

The hate crimes legislation broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.

while the idea of "extra punishment" for perpetrators of "hate crimes" is understandable and even laudable, i don't think it is justified. we don't punish thoughts. we punish crimes. it's already a crime to beat someone, whether he's gay (or insert hated group here) or not.

pam,
"Wow, no comments on any of Susan's threads all day. Did everybody die?"

just tired of the histrionics.

Kids and Hate Crimes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/22/lia.shenandoah.killing/index.html

Wow, no comments on any of Susan's threads all day. Did everybody die?

Farnaz:

"Innisfree beckons."

I assume you are referencing Yeats lake island.

Amusingly, Innisfree is the name of a sheltered community in the Blue Ridge Mountains...for the mentally infirm.

A new America must be born by overcoming nationalistic, racial, religious and ethnic differences. This means fusing, forgetting about what country one came from except of course for celebrating acceptable things like ethnic cuisine, music, etc.

This means as rapid racial mixing as possible--every race being willing to give a little to get a lot: A world truly beyond racism.

This means truly overcoming religious differences, which alas are not near definitively done until one becomes more scientific than religious--religion remaining as a comparative religion feel.

This means ethnic differences overcome. See note on race above.

And this means being sensible about what cannot be overcome by fusing, namely sex and sexual orientation. This means something of a "four way" nation born. A healthy representation of heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality. These ways of being augmenting division of labor, creating new insights.

What must not occur is the trend on the right to preserve particular religion, race, sexual orientation--and so on,--and all this wrapped in a particular form of nationalism (OUR America).

And the trend on the left of multiculturism is dangerous as well--as dangerous as the right wing trend. For multiculturalism is not an overcoming of differences in fusion but rather adding to the right wing trend a combustible mix of peoples, races, ethnic groups, religions. All speaking of tolerance but actually seeking a place for respective and predictable identities.

What must occur is what has already been said. A healthy mix of peoples, races, ethnic groups, religions and so on fusing into something new the world has not seen.

Then perhaps America will exist. There is no America now. It still remains only an idea. The new world has been arrived at geographically, but in the mind has yet to be arrived at. But we all know this. We all have dreamed America as much as lived here. Some of us are dreaming of it now.

Schaum,

I think it's time for the whole nature of blogging to change. There should be discussions of flower arranging, music, drawing, poetry.

What a mess--all these self-promoting hollow men, women.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

--Yeats

Not true, of course, but still....

Innisfree beckons.

Goodnight.

Schaum,

"Yes, I saw that. Reality is not his strong suit."

Yes, he's lacking a strong suit. He should go to the Men's Warehouse. I've located a comment from him shamelessly disclosing his belief that the Colbert Report was a real news telecast. He claims to have a Ph.D. in sociology from NYU....

Education is meaningless, I frequently say. (No one listens, though.)

I dismissed the Anglican defection to readily. Probably, they should have second thoughts, but then I think all adherents of big religion should think again (and again).
---------------------------
On another note, I know you have enough to read! But you must take a look at "A Case of Exploding Mangoes" by Mohammed Hanif. I think you will like it.

Farnaz:

"Guess what? This obscenely unintelligent Donohue actually has this blurb printed on the inside of his book jacket. I'm thinking--Is this sort of Woody Allen? Stanley Kubrick? A cross between the two?"

Yes, I saw that. Reality is not his strong suit.

Schaum,

RE: Anglicans

Well, they've been dribbling into the Vatican for awhile now.

Guess what? This obscenely unintelligent Donohue actually has this blurb printed on the inside of his book jacket. I'm thinking--Is this sort of Woody Allen? Stanley Kubrick? A cross between the two?

·" “Wake up, America! The secular minority has cut the brake cables on America’s In-God-We-Trust-Mobile™! Not even all 43 of our Christian presidents can save us now.” – Stephen Colbert, host of “The Colbert Report” "

Farnaz:

The bad news is that evidently the population of unhappy misfits in the Roman church is about to grow: the Vatican made it possible today for unhappy anglicans to become unhappy RCs.

The Chinese have a curse: "May you live in interesting times."

I just noticed "Schuam" a few minutes ago. Hilarious!

Schaum,

People dismiss moral morons like Donohue too easily. They can be dangerous. He keeps fudging the numbers on Catholic League membership, but it could be in the two hundred thousand range. There should be a way to find out.

I wonder if the League is tax exempt. Catholics I know hate, loathe, and despise him. Some liberal Catholic organization should take him on. The Vatican has enough problems; it should issue some sort of statement about him and the League.

Talk about hate....

Farnaz:

Just read re: WalterIFC.

Sorry. I've not been paying attention to whats going on here today.

Somebody has too much time on his hands.

1.

Hate, in and of itself, is an emotion, not a concrete act; often that emotion translates into acts that express the emotion, sometimes violently. So, if hate is an emotion, is it only an abstract concept? I don’t think so. Spinoza thought hate was an externally generated pain from which one wished to withdraw. David Hume said hate is an irreducible feeling that defied definition. And Aristotle said hate was an incurable wish for the destruction of an object.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says hatred is "prejudiced hostility or animosity (old racial prejudices and national prejudices)."

Hate crimes connote emotions of an intense and extreme nature that clearly are associated with vilification and detestation. A hate crime is an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.

Hate, and hatred, are not unlawful. But they are emotions which can lead to serious destruction. Remember Adolph Hitler? Clearly human beings require legislation that forbids, and punishes, destructive behavior resulting from hate. Any legislation which deals with an emotion that can result in specific harmful or concrete acts (e.g. discrimination, violence, etc.) against identifiable groups in our society, is essential. Implicit in the definition legal definition of hate is, I would suggest, a continuum ranging from hate propaganda, to discrimination, to physical violence in the worst case scenario.

2.

As with all facets of human interaction, the law does not provide a solution to the problem of hate in our society. World history and current events teach us that humanity has not yet evolved to the point where it has produced a fool-proof solution to hate. Rather, legal remedies are among the tools available in the constant struggle against hate moving our society away from freedom and democracy. Equally important tools include education and the promotion of social interaction. It should be obvious in this, a country of laws, that the law has an important role to play, especially in instances and situations where education or the promotion of social interaction are non-starters – such as the fundamentalist christer community.

A common criticism leveled against legal remedies – i.e., hate crime legislation -- is that they are reactive rather than pro-active. Legal remedies are most often applied in response to conduct which has already occurred, be it the dissemination of hate propaganda or criminal acts motivated by hate against minority groups, although there are notable exceptions. However, the importance of legal remedy goes above and beyond a solely punitive function.

Legislation, be it in the form of criminal sanctions, human rights law, immigration law, or judge-made law (i.e.. common law) sends a message to our multicultural society about values of decency and tolerance accepted as the norm.

We must have inclusive hate-crime legislation.

Schaum,

RE: Walter

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/thanks_but_no_thanks_from_a_happy_atheist.html#comments

Donohue is scary, yes. He's an out and out bigot. I've got quite a bit of info on him. I'm waiting....

Farnaz:

Read Donohue.

What stunning hatred. What stunning stupidity. If that wasn't a hate-speech, I don't know what would qualify.

More than ever I believe in strict separation between church and state. This guy is scary.

Schaum,

You can click on to it from the main page, but here is the link. I have suggested that we who post on Susan's thread name ourselves the Secular Saboteurs. Pam's okay with this.

Check this out. No more can be said by me. I'm not exactly speechless, but close.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/10/secular_saboteurs.html

peter, pam, et. al.
for the peter and presuppositionalism conversation, we can go here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2009/10/hate_is_not_a_religious_value.html

it was just posted today, and has no comments yet. if it gets busy with essay-related posts we'll go somewhere else, but let's continue there, for now.

Farnaz:

"Please look at Bill Donohue's essay. It must be seen. Hard to believe, but it was written. By a human being. In 2009. In America."

Where is it located. I can't find it. Got a link?

Schaum,

Please look at Bill Donohue's essay. It must be seen. Hard to believe, but it was written. By a human being. In 2009. In America.

Prior to the enactment of hate-crimes legislation, there was no requirement that a court order a more serious sentence for somebody who spray-painted "die Jews" on a synagogue than for a perpetrator who spray-painted a happy face on the wall of a corner drugstore. Hate-crimes legislation then expands regard not only for the property darmage in such a case, or physical pain and injury suffered as a result of an assault, but also takes into account the sometimes-intense emotional pain suffered by members of an entire targeted community.

The categories of hate-motivation covered by the hate-crimes laws include bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. As a result, the categories included in such legislation are broad. Contrary to the opinions of some critics (christer fundamentalists seem to be well represented among them!) a "gay rights provision merely recognizes the fact that in relation to targets of violent hate crime, members of the gay community have been singled out for vicious assaults and even murder in recent years. The inclusion of sexual orientation among the listed categories for hate motivation recognizes that while all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, criminal acts which are specifically intended to terrorize a specific group of citizens, such as the gay and lesbian community in America, have, ultimately, have become a significant societal problem.

The inclusion of sexual orientation does not confer special rights on any community but rather helps to ensure that people are not targeted as the victims of crime based solely on their sexual orientation. This safeguard should ultimately better promote equal rights for all Americans.

Walter,

Concentrate, please, re an accusation:

the arminius we know and love is spelled without an "e".

i'm sure farnaz and schaum hadn't noticed the different spelling before commenting...

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 20, 2009 3:16 PM

Farnaz:

"Yet, you're accusing me?? What, precisely, is your problem? That I'm quicker than you? (I'm not alone.)"

Uh...maybe I'm missing something, Farnaz. I don't see any accusation here...

Part one.

A crime to hate? Specifically laws which make a special case of hating another race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation?

First it should be understood that a nation which considers such laws is a nation which is weakened and in fact threatened with not being a nation. By nation we typically mean a particular people in a particular area--and by particular people is meant homogeneity, or if heterogeneity heterogeneity not to the point that cohesion is threatened and such laws as hate laws repeatedly considered.

A nation is an entity which to a great extent differentiates itself from other nations, other national religions, other races, ethnic groups, etc. That is obvious to all. For a nation to start increasing the number and type of hate laws is for a nation to be threatened with internal division even as the nation aspires to a new national understanding--and this new national understanding is the positive element, probably the sole positive element, of the increase of heterogeneity and hate laws.

Part two.

A nation which is strongly homogeneous is a nation which is fixed, not viewing itself as incomplete or deficient in some way. Such a nation has the positive advantage of being quite stable, but the disadvantage of not being open to change. The nation which is strongly heterogeneous is open to change, views itself as incomplete, but has the disadvantage of being unstable, no one knowing if a new national understanding will emerge or if the nation will disintegrate into rival groups of all sorts.

Typically when a nation finds itself considering hate laws, more on the heterogeneous side, politics is fairly simply understood. The right wing is the stable core resistent to change. The left wing is the defense of the increase of heterogeneity and a call for a new national understanding. And of course each side has its flaws. As already mentioned the stable core side is often too fixed and resistent to change. And the other side is often heedless of what can come of increasing heterogeneity. That there is the danger of the loss of national unity and the increase of internal division.

Part three.

What can be stated with some assurance is that a nation when it finds itself in such a transitional situation--a movement from being homogeneous toward a heterogeneity and the hope of a new national understanding, a new homogeneity born in the aftermath of heterogeneity--had better have its citizens clearly informed and capable of handling the transition. As an example of how important this is, just ask if there are any examples in history of a nation becoming more heterogeneous and the people actually standing up and stating the situation and dangers, and arguing for the creation of a new, qualitatively different nation on the ashes of the old.--For that is what is occurring: A new nation on the ashes of the old.

This new nation on the ashes of the old is best grasped--UNDERSTOOD--by a nation which was strongly homogeneous to begin with--for it has the advantage of comparison and contrast even as its homogeneity is an obstacle to change. The nation which is rather heterogeneous to begin with finds change into a new nation to be more POSSIBLE, but precisely its heterogeneity blinds it to what is occurring--for it lacks the ability to contrast a former homogeneous state with what it is becoming. And when we weigh both of these situations it is difficult to state which is the better and which the worse.

To consider the problem by taking the U.S. in hand, the U.S. is rather unique and is to be distinguished from a nation such as France or England. The latter are rather homogeneous although there was much heterogeneity in the past which fused to create the two nations. The U.S. in contrast seems to be a nation which understands itself as never complete, always in project of becoming more heterogeneous and fusing this heterogeneity into a still unseen unity. In other words, and as strange as it may seem, the U.S. has never really been a nation because it has always been a process of fusing peoples, races, religions, etc. It has been the success of fusing respective elements so far which has created the illusion a fixed nation such as France or England is existing.

Part four.

In fact this successful fusion of the U.S. so far has created a more powerful thrust than the typical homogeneous nation is capable of. We can say the more a fusion of disparate elements is a success the more this process is more powerful than the typical homogeneous nation. But the less such a fusion is successful the more the project, "nation", is behind the typical homogeneous nation and in fact threatened with internal division and collapse into the elements which attempted to fuse. The U.S. is in a profound transitional period and it is difficult to see what the outcome will be. Certainly we can say that the more a nation tries to fuse disparate elements--is heterogenous and is trying to create a new unity--the more its domestic policy seems to be confused with the foreign, for the foreign policy of a nation is to manage relationships with disparate peoples, and this is too close to the project of a heterogeneous nation fusing disparate elements.

Laws within a heterogeneous nation against hate crimes are so close to foreign policy attempts to get along with other peoples. In fact it can be said we would like hate crime laws to become international law. In fact the heterogeneous nation trying to fuse disparate elements and calling for laws against hate crimes finds itself moral, for human rights, whether it likes it or not, irrespective of any good will. It is forced to be moral toward other nations and calling for human rights out of an attempt to save itself--out of the attempt to fuse its heterogeneity into a higher order. Its internal knowledge of the effects of division informs its foreign policy, gives it idealism. In fact an interesting study would be one which questions if the greatest moral exemplars of the human race have come from areas which were riven by division, threatened with collapse and disorder.

Part five.

In other words, perhaps our greatest moral exemplars were forced to be moral more than we care to admit--were the necessary voice in an area threatened with the violence of division. But to return to the United States, calling for hate crime laws is not enough. People must understand why a nation would call for such laws, what a symptom that is, and the stakes we all hold. Both our right and left wing parties are wrong and right. The right is wrong in being so resistent to change although the U.S. has always been a project toward some higher unity out of the fusion of disparate elements. And the left is wrong in thinking fusion of heterogeneity is easy, that it comes automatically. In fact the left is often absurd, calling for multiculturality. As if that is the goal of increasing heterogeneity in a single area! Recipe for disaster.

And both parties are right in that the right wing holds sacred the concept of nation, that such an entity must exist--that such a unity and answer to heterogeneity must exist. Which is not so far from the correctness of the left wing party that increasing diversity must exist and that something can be made of this diversity. Both the right and left can understand each other if the one is simply willing to be a little more giving and the other a little more careful. Hate crime laws are a profound symptom that a nation had better have a profound conversation with itself about what it is so far, what it wants to become, and how it is supposed to get there. If such is not understood it will never be a crime to hate, for hate will be the default position, and each race, color, religion, ethnic group, nation, sexual orientation will find itself concerned with only itself. If man cannot create he resorts to ruthless self-preservation. Such are the stakes. And God help us become responsible citizens.

Susan,

I'm in agreement with you on the matter of hate crimes. HOwever, those who object to the special category are not only right wingers. There are also many leftists who fit oppose the designation.

Awhile ago, on this thread, this discussion was held. I was alone among those who shared your view. It will be interesting to see how this topic plays out now.

Walter,

By your "reasoning," I should accuse you of authoring this post, but then, genetics has spared me your illogical tendencies.

An apology is due. From you. To me.
------------------------------------------

International diplomatic efforts under way are far too little and too late to constrain Iran’s progress. Iran is committed to war with its enemies and Israel is first on the list.
Iran’s nuclear capability is likely to be used in such a war. The US will not act to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel. Israel has the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, even if the US opposes an attack. The Israeli public is prepared to accept the consequences — diplomatic and possibly military — of such an attack. Therefore Israel should attack Iranian nuclear installations.

Posted by: FarnazMansour1 | October 20, 2009 4:24 PM

Walter,

This is your post from the previous thread. I pointed out the "trick," which was also played on me, btw. Yet, you're accusing me?? What, precisely, is your problem? That I'm quicker than you? (I'm not alone.)

You owe me an apology.

Pronto.

------------------------------------------
the arminius we know and love is spelled without an "e".

i'm sure farnaz and schaum hadn't noticed the different spelling before commenting...

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 20, 2009 3:16 PM

Or maybe here - http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2009/10/crimes_against_community_a_special_kind_of_hate_needs_special_laws.html

She doesn't usually get much commentary.

Peter,
We need to wait until this question (hate crimes) is the one featured on the On Faith Home page, so we can look for an unused thread.

You could post here for now...

Hi Walter, Pam, Arminius, Mary,

We are on the scavenge again for another forum to post. Next week is probably best to resume our discussion on a regular basis so I will check with you then. Anything in between will be sporadic on my behalf.