2009-10-15 14:53:00
JJ:
I agree with Gary that the violent offenders need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. It is ridiculous that because of our corrupt legal system it costs more to put a person to death than it does to keep him in jail for life. It should only cost a few cents rather than millions to execute a person.
Besides, it is a cruel and unusual punishment to keep a person in jail for forty years or so. It is much kinder to just send him to his Maker. If you believe in a loving God he will then be dealt with fairly but for an atheist he will have the peace of oblivion and be as if he never was. Either way death is kinder than 40 years in prison.
On the other hand, I think that non-violent offenders need to be given a chance to pay off their debt through money or labor rather than prison. This will help repay victims and relieve the financial burden of too many prisoners.
"CalvinJones":
"Better yet lets divert wayward youth before they become criminals. The number one predictor of criminality is a person's ability to read at grade level by the third grade."
JJ:
Then you must support vouchers which would improve education.
"CalvinJones":
"Now Joe your defense of capital punishment easily translates to a defense of abortion."
JJ:
So are you saying that fetuses go around murdering people and need to be executed? Typical Leftist reasoning.
"CalvinJones":
"It could be argued that abortion saves money."
JJ:
You were a fetus once. Are you saying the world would have saved a lot of money if you were aborted? You may be right on this.
"CalvinJones":
"And if you believe in talking snakes, floating zoos and virgin births those impacted will be welcomed with open arms by the invisible sky god."
JJ:
You may be right again:
Talking snakes = Leftists calling names
Floating zoo = Congress
Sky god = Obama
I believe! I believe!
JJ:
And to think that the Left accuses the Right of being dittoheads. We have before us nine letters all saying the same thing. It's as if some teacher or guru gave an assignments to some acolytes and the students knew they must write what the teacher wants to hear to get an "A."
You'll never find nine letters in a row from the Right that shows such unquestioning conformity of thought.
When the first Bush spoke to school kids and the Democrats complained in similar fashion do you think there appeared 9 letters of such conformity from the Right writing with such righteous indignation? I'll bet not even close.
I'm sure all of these 9 would have been just as supportive had "Bush 43" spoken to our kids during the heat of the war and the suspicion was that he was going to try to instill patriotism toward the war. NOT!
Even so, many were concerned Obama was going to bring up health care to the kids in an attempt to influence the parents. Prepublication may have forced changes in the speech. Who knows?
"Gimmeshelter" wrote:
"It's heartwarming to read these letters slamming the crazy right. OK, Crazies -- where are you? Care to defend your ridiculous stance on our President's speech? Probably not."
JJ:
You attack an illusionary straw man here you have blindly accepted from your Lefty media. Few had any problem with the speech that was delivered.
There were two major problems that caused the original outcry.
The main thing were the workbook assignments passed down by the Fed asking the kids to answer "How can I help the president" (pass health care).
The "pass heath care" was what many saw in that unfinished sentence and saw a blatant attempt to shamelessly use our kids to get to the parents.
Secondly, we had no idea what was going to be in the speech and were concerned it would be hyper-partisan as most of his speeches are. He is about 100X as partisan as "Bush 41" was and even this mild man upset the Left by speaking to our kids. I'm sure "Bush 43" didn't even try because he knew it would create a venomous attack.
When the final edit of the speech was released I heard no criticism of the wording, but there was an aftermath of feeling about the planted questions and original secrecy.
Now the Left is deceptively attempting to portray the Right as being paranoid over a squeaky clean speech which has absolutely nothing to do with the complaint.
The Right finds it extremely irritating that the Left, who claim to be against stereotyping and profiling, are always incorrectly stereotyping and profiling them. To do this they have to be either lacking the power to reason or are just mean spirited and happy to participate in deception.
"Difoderit" wrote:
"Oh no, you repukes are not racist at all - just an example of your "non-racist" propaganda - a new low, or probably more than likely someones new avatar on this board by the end of the day. (http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/obama-racist-latest.jpg) "
JJ:
I'm not a "repuke" thank you.
It probably took a dozen nerds searching for days to finally find a caricature like the one above and then direct you to the site.
I'll tell you what you cannot find and that is tea party folk being as disrespectful as was the Left during the Bush administration. Take a look at this site of just three rallies that I found myself in a few minutes:
http://www.thomasalbert.com/politics/protest/san_francisco.htm
Comparing Bush to Hitler was mild here. Scroll through the pictures to get the flavor of the disrespect.
I went to the both Tea Parties here and neither saw or heard anything racist but found myself with a very polite and friendly group of people.
JJ:
I've been thinking of "Difoderit's" "racist" image he referred to of Obama caricatured as a tribal leader. I could see how it could be offensive, but is it really racist? To determine this it is, a good test to reverse the tables.
Take a look at this picture of Bush as a caveman:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Bush%20caveman/DrewsDesigns/caveman_bush.png
Were the Lefties who did this racists or just disrespectful?
Similarly the primitive picture you referenced of Obama was disrespectful, but I don't think you can call it racist. If you think it is can you explain why you think this?
But the trouble with using reason with Lefties on this is they define anything a conservative does that they do not like as racist.
"Becourteous" (BC) wrote:
"Is the '(pass healthcare)' your own take or was it actually in print somewhere?"
JJ:
I thought I made it clear it was not in the assignment but that which was in parenthesis was what many saw as helping the President since it is on the news 24/7.
BC:
"It would seem odd since he didn't talk about healthcare in the speech."
JJ:
It would have been odd if he did after all the uproar. If there was anything about health care in the original it would have been scrubbed out to show the Right they were upset over nothing.
BC:
"Can you tell me where you found a copy of the lesson plan? I would like to read it myself. Thanks."
JJ:
I don't know if a copy exists but one was planned and then cancelled after the criticism. Here is a quote:
"Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan created by the Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing 'what they can do to help the president'."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
Note: This quote is not from Fox, Rush, Hannity or Beck.
JJ:
If you think mining produces unpleasant scenery just wait until we get 5% or more of our energy from wind. If this were to happen even many environmentalists would get disgusted in seeing them clutter up our beautiful scenery wherever we go.
The late Ted Kennedy couldn't take having them a couple miles from his backyard and sued the eco-friendly company to stop their construction.
When some of these eco-warriors are freezing in the middle of the winter because the wind isn't blowing maybe their lips will finally utter these sensible words; "Drill baby, drill!" "Go nuclear!" "Restore the dams!"
JJ:
Zelinga (ousted president from Honduras) is just not an innocent victim as Bates indicates. He illegally made moves to change the Constitution and illegally fired the head of the military. The Supreme Court ruled his acts unconstitutional and voted 15-0 to remove him from office. Congress and the leaders of both parties supported the move.
I'm sure there have been abuses since the change as there always are in a Third World country but to their credit civilians, not the military directed the change and they are planning another democratic election in November. This is not a case of a dictator assuming power with intent to rule for life.
Zelinga seemed to be following in the footsteps of Chavez in seeking to alter the Constitution and control the media so he could remain in power for an indefinite period. He had close ties with Raul Castro and Chavez, which indicates his ideology.
It appears that both sides have made mistakes and another is made if one just makes a black-and-white judgment.
JJ:
It is ironical that when you go to a politically correct store they put your purchases in a paper bag rather than plastic. I find this strange because these are the same people that tell us we cannot cut down trees so we can have paper bags.
They also tell us to save energy and it takes more energy to make a paper bag than a plastic one. As long as we systematically dispose of plastic in landfills there is no harm done. I've seen large landfills covered over and beautiful golf courses built on top of them. The plastic below the course is not hurting anything.
Here in Boise, [the company] Allied has given us a special recycling bin for plastics, paper and other items. Recycling is one area I am happy to cooperate with the greenies as it is one thing they want to do that doesn't seem to hurt the environment or cost me money.
JJ:
(Concerning a Boise couple who sued the homeless center after they assisted them.)
Good point guys about sending them to an atheist or Muslim shelter?
What's that I hear in the background?
There aren't any.
The one religion trying to do something is attacked for trying to do good by those who they helped. Pathetic.
First there has been no evidence presented in the story that there was any discrimination and, secondly, if I were homeless and hungry I would put up with any discrimination anyone would pass out if they gave me food and shelter yet made no religious requirements.
I have found in my life that it is actually dangerous to help people. When you do you have to be prepared for a major problem of some kind connected with it. It seems like it should not be that way, but it often is. The sue-happy Left doesn't help things.
"Domer76":
"Ever hear of leaching? Ask residents on wells south of the dump where solvents in their drinking water come from. Groundwater along Chinden, near the mall, near [the television station] KBCI and other places you wouldn't even imagine have been contaminated for years."
JJ:
The contamination mainly comes from other pollutants rather than plastic. The newer landfills are first covered with a PLASTIC mesh to PREVENT contamination from toxic chemicals.
In the past we were careless and placed landfills close to groundwater and dumped lead, mercury and toxic materials without discrimination.
But today if we pick a site a couple thousand feet away from groundwater we can place all the plastic we want without fear of contamination for a million years or so. By that time we will probably have evolved to the point where plastic will be a health food.
Did you know that millions of years ago oxygen was poisonous to life, but life adapted?
"Domer76":
"You are absolutely correct. I apologize profusely. Plastics are perfectly safe and will never contaminate our environment. What in the world was I thinking? I shouldn't be offering comments on subjects I know nothing about."
JJ:
You seem to be right here. I can't find any evidence that buried household plastics create any problem. You are right. Unless you can present some evidence of your statement you should wait until you have some.
JJ:
There are three basic views of creation:
The first two involve magic that is awkward for the reasoning mind to explain or assimilate. The third gives an explanation that at least corresponds to creation as it evolves through human intelligence.
Now the trouble with teaching view #1 is that it s pretty much summed up in the one sentence I wrote.
On the other hand, evolution is very complex and there is plenty of material to teach a number of courses.
The creationists, however, have a point in demanding fairness, so I think we should allow schools to bring in guest lecturers who will present several versions of creationism so the students can be exposed to all sides of the equation.
-- End Of Part Two --
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog which can be read online at Idaho Statesman Letters To The Editor. These exchanges were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey to The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
Go to:
Local Posts #41, Part One
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved