The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Barth's picture

    Quick Hits

    This weekend and next are not going to present enough time to thumbsuck through the many issues which should be discussed here, so, with a tip of the hat to the late, great Jimmy Cannon, herewith a few paragraphs to enrage a few and, perhaps, interest a few others:

    1. Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee even though his party despises him, and rest of us can not listen to him for five minutes without wanting to scream. He will not be elected president either. When the President is re-elected, therefore, seven million pontificators will kwell about his great comeback, and what it all means. But he will still be a Democrat and loathed by his opponents for that reason and because his father was black. If he can get over those things (as ridiculous they are as a reason to oppose his ideas), he will have, indeed, mounted a comeback. That seems quite unlikely.

    2. They went home, read a few polls, and saw that nobody gives a rat's behind about the supposed "evils" of government spending and regulation or the deficit, and seem more absorbed with our sinking economy and the need to fix bridges, highways and schools. Nonetheless, Congress comes back and decides to have the same fight about the same stupid things and this time think that punishing people who depend on government assistance is necessary if the government is going to also assist people fix what was broken during the last serious hurricane to hit us. The phrase "out of touch" does not even begin to describe how asinine and, ultimately, destructive this is.

    3. If Elizabeth Warren becomes a United States Senator in January, 2013, will she still say the things she says now? We certainly need for her to do so, since, despite her professorial background she speaks in direct and clear sentences that even the ignoramuses with whom we share this country should be able to understand: as in "nobody in this country got rich on their own."



    4. By the way, on the subject of proudly stupid, your blogger is honored to see things posted here, then ridiculed, finally show up in regular columns written by people who get paid to do this.

    5. If you are trying to convince people against the death penalty (something your blogger does not favor, while recognizing the right of a sovereign state to disagree unless the Supreme Court holds it to be a "cruel and unusual" punishment), don't try to convince people that Troy Davis was "innocent" unless you can show he had nothing at all to do with the death of Officer MacPhail. With minimal study of it, the issue appears to be whether Davis actually pulled the trigger when the officer was shot, and that, perhaps, the identity of the specific shooter is relevant under Georgia law at least for the imposition of the death penalty. There appears to be no question, though, that he was with others, with whom he acted "in concert" (as the law likes to say) and that Officer MacPhail was killed while preventing Davis and others from doing whatever they were doing to a homeless man. That governments should not be in the business of killing people is one thing; to say that Davis was "innocent" is quite another.

    6. On another issue which might enrage a few people, the Jewish person writing this stuff continues to be amazed at how Israel is portrayed in reference to people who have never once accepted the idea of a "Jewish state" to exist within the sliver of land allocated to it now referred to as "1967 borders with mutually agreed to land swaps." It is hard to see how declarations of statehood are going to bring peace when President Abbas describes the "Holy Land" as the birthplace of "Christianity and Islam" pointedly omitting the reference to one other religion. The current administration of the Israeli government, and their cozying up to reactionary forces in our country deserves much of the criticism it receives, but if having a less than ideal government warranted all that people seem to want to drop on Israel, fairness suggests that the United States should have been dismembered at least during the Bush Administration.

    7. John Lackey is flat out terrible, and worse yet, does not seem to notice that. Carl Crawford has been a grievous disappointment though there is reason hope that a second season in Boston might be better. With a now very poor rotation, Youkilis injured and the bullpen overworked, the prospects for a good postseason, assuming hte Red Sox get that far (they will) are not very good. On the other hand, the 2004 team was down, as we always note, 0-3 in the ALCS, and the 2007 team down 1-3 in the ALCS that year, and were far less than perfect teams which won a world championship. Anything is possible. What is certain is that Terry Francona is an excellent manager, the best the Red Sox have had in the 54 years they have occupied much of the concerns of at least one guy. To try to pin this nightmarish September on him is beyond absurd.

    8. It is absurd in the same way as people who saw nothing wrong in Vice President Cheney's company making money off a war commenced by bait and switch tactics and fearmongering, who now want to take the President to task because the government tried to help a company that went bankrupt, render inadequate the word chutzpah (pronounced anyway you want it). Similarly, the people who say that it is time to stop blaming the Bush Administration for our national and international economic crisis either know better and just say this stuff for political advantage, or are way too idiotic to take seriously.

    That's all for now. Happy New Year to those who celebrate it.

    Comments

    Barth, I deleted the duplicate post without the youtube.


    Thanks.  I gather I could not do that myself.  Or, I could not do that myself.


    You cover a hell of a lot of ground here.

    So here is one of my thoughts.

    ...don't try to convince people that Troy Davis was "innocent" unless you can show he had nothing at all to do with the death of Officer MacPhail.

    If I drive you to a Quick Mart knowing you are going to rob it and I wait outside as the look out getaway driver and you shoot and kill the cashier...I am guilty of murder.

    I am part and parcel of the enterprise and I am liable criminally and civilly; and i would bet that rule applies in every single state.

    And the problem with trying this case in the media is that nobody in the media has read the entire file.

    I sure have not read it.

    The problem I have with the death penalty is how it is applied; as far as I am concerned.

    We now officially incarcerate more minorities than Whites. I am not speaking per capita I am discussing sheer numbers of those imprisoned.

    We kill more minorities per the death penalty.

    A murderer in one state or county gets life and another murderer in another state gets executed. A good attorney with resources usually can play Clarence Darrow from time to time and save a life while a less qualified court-appointed attorney with few resources can lose rather easily in his attempt to keep someone from being executed.

    That someone who rapes and murders a 9 year old should be killed. I have no moral reservations about that at all.

    I do not have an answer to this systematic problem.

    I just feel that the system is fundamentally unfair.


    That someone who rapes and murders a 9 year old should be killed. I have no moral reservations about that at all.  

    Sorry Dick, you're wrong about that.  The sooner we all arrive at this conclusion the better our world will be. 


    I honestly have no moral issue against the death penalty, beyond the idea that the state should not take a person's life.  I have been outvoted on this in many jurisdictions including one I know very well. 

    I suspect the issue in Georgia is not so much Davis' criminal responsibility (and, btw, I believe the principle you describe has a moral basis as well; if you help someone to kill another person, you are as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger).  The death penalty, in most states, requires aggravating factors that make a murder into a capital crime.  One of them could be (though it really ought not to be) whether the defendant was the actual actor.  (It makes no sense for that to be an aggravator, which become easy to see when you consider the murder for hire situation.  The guy hired to the deed should not be subject to worse punishment than applicable to the person who set the crime in motion and likely benefits the most from its commission.)  If Georgia has such an aggravator requirement, I understand the issue raised since this defendant was convicted.  Since I do not live in Georgia, it is of little concern to me.  I am against the death penalty for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Troy Davis and, from what I have read, I would have no inclination to argue for anything on his behalf but even if I did, it would not be on the ground that he is "innocent."

     


    To paraphrase Elizabeth Warren, no one has ever killed anyone on his own.  It's either all of us to the gallows or none of us.


    I honestly have no moral issue against the death penalty, beyond the idea that the state should not take a person's life. 

    I'm confused by this statement.  It sounds as though you do have a moral objection to the death penalty, because it involves the state taking a person's life.  

    Or did you mean by that that you think people who commit particularly heinous crimes may in some cases morally in some sense "deserve" to be killed, just not by the state (by whom, then?  anyone?) 

     

     


    For me anyway, I never have to get to that question.

    Equal Protection as a concept takes away our right to execute someone under the law!

    That is why procedure takes precedence over the subject as far as I am concerned.

    There are certainly metaphors out there for all to see.

    I mean why did Libby (who is a traitor) get 8 years and Liddy (who is a traitor) served no sentence at all?

    Barth underlines that there are issues concerning conviction that vary from issues concerning punishment.

    But we are in the real world and equal protection is only a concept and will be applied by human beings and therefore the death penalty should never be imposed.

    When it is imposed I do not always lay awake at night worrying about it.

    Sometimes I do!


    I guess you caught me in a quandry.  I do not think that people who support the death penalty are immoral.  I do think that government should not be in the business of deciding who lives and who dies. 

     

    I believe very much in punishment for the commission of cries proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think prison is the place for murderers both to protect the rest of us from the murderer and as a a deterrent to others who might contemplate murder.  Others think that is not enough.

     


    Well, for what it's worth here's my position on the death penalty:

    Sure, those guilty of the heinous crimes usually associated with it deserve to die, as much as anyone deserves anything. However, I feel that executing that punishment demeans us as a society.

    Furthermore, the scientist in me doesn't believe in free will*, and so thinks that "justice" is a far less useful concept than "prevention", as in we should do what we can to keep people from committing crimes in the first place. With regards to "punishment", that suggests to me that our goals should be to (a) prevent this particular offender from committing such a crime again (which the death penalty is actually pretty good at, assuming we have the correct offender), (b) deter future similar crimes by other potential offenders (there's no evidence to suggest the death penalty is better or worse than life in prison in this regard), and (c) not lessen our respect for our fellow humans.

    These are my beliefs with respect to the death penalty. I definitely don't pretend to know everything, and respect that other people can come to different conclusions.

    *The part of me that has to get out of bed every morning, however, feels compelled to act as if free will exists.


    I'd be all for sending criminals to the phantom zone.


    DD, barth and VA, thanks for your thoughts on this, good ones all.

    I definitely don't think supporting the death penalty makes a person, thereby, immoral. 

    I happen to think it is immoral because, mainly, people who are innocent--which, to clarify, I am not asserting is the case with Troy Davis--have lost their lives many times; because human error is a permanent phenomenon whereas the continuation of a person's life is not, and because there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than life  imprisonment so there isn't that potential counter-argument for it.  

    I hesitate on whether the act of supporting the death penalty is, or can be, immoral.  It seems to me any citizen can verify that the 3 points I make in the preceding paragraph are all true.  If a fellow citizen sees these statements are true and supports the death penalty anyway, what should we think about that?  What are the legitimate reasons to support it anyway?

    That amounts to saying "I know innocent people die because of it, and there is no evidence it protects the rest of us.  But I support it anyway because..."   Because what?  I don't say I could not hear an argument for why supporting it anyway might be legitimate (understandable, yes--I do understand why so many people support it.  But what is understandable is not necessarily legitimate on that account).  I just haven't heard one yet.


    How many witnesses have blood on their hands?

    As for #8 The managers of the company have claimed the Fifth amendment.

    Solyndragate?

    #6 I liked how the term Jew came from the term Judea; as in the ancient land of Judea, 

    Had the Romans not interfered, the Jews would have continued to rule over their lands.

    The UN reversed this action .


    They took the Fifth out of caution given the atmosphere, and on advice of counsel.  If a crime was committed here it would be a securities fraud in that they conveyed an optimisim that they knew was unwarranted, but I doubt that to be the case.  The government surely did nothing wrong in trying to help them, before the market for solar panels crashed.