A narrow slice
The
writer of the Sept. 26 letter "Hostility" has joined the chorus of those who
insist that some or much of the criticism of President
Obama is
race-based and grounded in hatred. Let's be clear. In a nation of more than 300
million there surely are racists who are not thrilled about having a
black president. But, in my opinion, that attitude represents only a narrow
slice of the population and is not mainstream among political conservatives.
Most political differences don't stem from hatred,
and such animus as exists in the political world is fairly evenly spread across
the partisan spectrum. Certainly, Rep. Joe
Wilson shouldn't have shouted, "You lie," at the
president. But what are we to make of Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid's description of then-President
Bush as "a
liar and a loser." If we call these things bigotry, it would be just as fair to
conclude that Reid
must have a hateful bias against evangelical Christians from Texas.
As a matter of fact, there is some of that going around.
Liberals need to stop playing the race card every
time someone finds fault with President
Obama. The
practice is dishonest and damaging to political discourse. It speaks well for
American racial enlightenment that a large white majority would elect a black
man as president.
I suppose the only thing that would have satisfied some on the left would have
been a unanimous election in his favor and then silence from anyone inclined to
criticize him.
DON GORDON
Clemmons
Facts and faith
I wish this could be the last word on same-sex marriage:
Fact: There are a certain number of gay people in the world. Fact: Advocating a gay lifestyle, or permitting same-sex marriage, will not change this number.
Fact: HIV is spread by promiscuity, not my monogamous marriage. Fact: By allowing same-sex marriage we will be reducing promiscuity among gays, and thereby reducing the spread of HIV.
Faith: Allowing same-sex marriage does not affect our "straight" marriages. Faith: By being faithful to our marriage partners, no matter what sex, we will reduce the spread of HIV. That's what marriage is all about: Commitment and faithfulness.
DAVID TURCK
Clemmons
Healing and service
In response to the Sept. 27 letter "We have forgotten," HIV/AIDS is a virus. It is not caused by homosexuality or any other sexual orientation; nor does it discriminate by age or gender. Children and heterosexuals can get HIV/AIDS. If one is exposed, the probability of HIV infection is high.
Homosexual tendency occurs in families everywhere. It is present in every religious group and nation around the globe.
The Bible says, "God is love," and, "God is good." People have challenges in their lives. Being homosexual is one of them; being married is another. Having a chronic disease is a different type of challenge.
It's time we stopped hitting people with Bibles
and got on with living the life our elder brother Jesus
taught, a life of healing and service. If AIDS is not your cause, turn your
attention elsewhere. There are children right here in Forsyth
County who are hungry every day, families who can't afford books and school
supplies, elders who need support. There are people who cannot read, can't walk
or who have other diseases. Do something to make the world better, care for
someone who needs your help.
ELSA McKEITHAN
Winston-Salem
A higher standard
Georgia's recent execution of Troy Davis tragically illustrates again the critical importance of abolishing capital punishment. Our justice system is built on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Jurors are instructed that a verdict of "guilty of murder" can only be rendered when there is no doubt as to guilt. Yet, in this case, with the only evidence being testimony from witnesses, with most later recanting their testimony, surely doubts remained as to guilt. Unfortunately, once a person is executed, it is too late for any reversal, even if innocence is later confirmed, as demonstrated in numerous cases.
Beyond irreversible errors in judgment, there are other good reasons to abolish executions. Ethically, every culture has laws to prohibit murder, recognizing that human life is sacred. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, why is it acceptable for the state to kill, to engage in the very act for which the criminal has been tried? I did not teach my children not to hit by hitting them, but by using other consequences. Certainly, one who murders should face severe consequences and should be incarcerated to prevent any ability to do further harm.
Economically, given the protracted appeal process required in capital offenses, it actually costs more to eventually execute a person than it does to keep the person in prison, removing another frequently cited justification for capital punishment. Let's hold our government to the standard of "Thou shall not kill" by making capital punishment illegal.
DEAN CLIFFORD
Winston-Salem
LTE..#1 "Liberals need to stop playing the race card every time someone finds fault with President Obama"....."But, in my opinion, that attitude represents only a narrow slice of the population and is not mainstream among political" liberals.
ReplyDeleteit cuts both ways, Don.
Lte1...there is much invested in Mr Obama from the New Deal, Great Society Left. He is the high point of post Cold War liberalism. Opposition to his policies is proper as he is not the image that was sold to us in 2008. Some of us knew very well what Obama was all about from the start. Some suspected what he was about but couldn't resist voting for a once in a lifetime cult figure. Still others knew what he was and with the help of a disinterested media and a sorry opposition candidate, they pulled off their illusion. Here we are.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy Obama's sense of humor when he goes off the script and can employ a humor I like. Those of us who oppose him do so on policy, not hate of him. If there is something to be hated, for me, it is his ideology. That I do without apology.
LTE#1 -
ReplyDelete"In a nation of more than 300 million there surely are racists who are not thrilled about having a black president. But, in my opinion, that attitude represents only a narrow slice of the population and is not mainstream among political conservatives."
I am always amused to read such nonsense. Almost 2/3 of Americans believe that racism is still a problem in this country. About half say that they know someone who is a racist, and since that someone cannot be the same someone, that adds up to a lot of racists.
The best part is that when asked to evaluate themselves, only about one in eight admits to being racist. Ha, ha. So how many racists are there?
Well, one in eight is quite a few...about 30 million adults...not exactly a "small slice". But I see and hear people do racist things every day that I KNOW they are unaware are racist actions, so I figure that the number is at least double that.
I know a lot of people, way more than the average person does, because I am involved in a wide range of community activities...people from every part of the spectrum, economic, political, social.
Most of the conservative Republicans and independents that I know, especially from the lower economic/social groups, are clearly racists. A few are not, but only a few. The only Democrats that I know who are racists are all black, maybe 25-30% of them.
Anyone actually paying attention to the vigor and nature of the attacks on the President can plainly see the racism right up front. To deny it is to retreat into unreason.
OT, there are certainly plenty of racists in this country; however, before you identify any PARTICULAR person or group as racist, you need at least a little evidence beyond the fact that they disagree with the President-- unless your definition of racist is "anyone who ever disagrees with President Obama for any reason."
ReplyDeletere LTE#4 by Mr. Clifford: The standard is, as you say, guilt without a [reasonable] doubt. The jury in the Troy Davis in fact made that finding. I was not at the trial, and I doubt that you were. It is not for us who did not hear the evidence or see the witnesses to decide that the jury was wrong. Else why have a jury? I flatly reject the economic model of what sort of punishment should be used. The cheapest method would just be to let everyone go. Right behind that is a summary trial and a bullet to the head without right of appeal. (I don't support either of those, either.)
ReplyDeleteNo witness ever testified as to why he/she recanted his/her testimony, and thus no chance to cross examine.
The state does sanction killing in prescribed circumstances: self-defense, war and dare I say it, abortion.
Capital punishment is easily avoidable: don't kill anyone with premeditated malice.
New Poll: 55% disapprove of Obama as president. The other 45% are idiots.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Bo's "reasoning" and "facts" leave a lot to be desired.
ReplyDeleteIn the Troy Davis case, the recanting witnesses could not be heard because of a time limit imposed in 1996 by the Gingrich Congress in hopes of killing more death row inmates.
Anyone who knows even a little about criminal justice knows that the most unreliable of all evidence is eyewitness evidence. If you have one eyewitness, you have one version of the crime. If you have two eyewitnesses, then you have two versions, not identical and so on. In this case there were six eyewitnesses, so there were six separate versions of the crime. And then all six recanted.
Why would an eyewitness recant? Perhaps because he realized that his testimony was wrong? Or perhaps because his original testimony was coerced by the police (we know that that could NEVER happen)? Or perhaps because he is now in cahoots with the convicted person? Ha, ha.
In this case it doesn't matter, because the witnesses were never heard. When a human life is in the balance, there should be no time limit on the truth. In fact, the DA is an officer of the court, sworn to seek the truth. Of course, that is a joke to most DAs...all they want is a conviction...it doesn't really matter who. The DA in this case should have found a way to get to the truth. ROTFLMAO
And dare I say it, abortion is not defined by the state as killing. At least Bo didn't use the term murder, which is thrown around by many of the hysterical christians who care nothing for truth and only that their religious beliefs become a part of our law.
As to the racist business, I happen to have access to a standard "conservative" e-mail network made of of white, middle class, college educated people all over the country, quite a few of whom I have known for a long time, and most of whom are usually pretty decent people, except when it comes to President Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe e-mails that they forward as "truth" are almost all completely made up BS that never happened...Rush/Beck/Fox stuff and worse...and all tinged with hysteria. But the truly appalling part of their communiques is the constant use of the "N" word and the cartoons depicting the President as a monkey or a cannibal with a spear and a bone through his nose. Some might consider that racist. Maybe Bo would not.
These e-mails are circulated and forwarded and recirculated by and to millions of people. Of course, it's all in fun, isn't it?
OT, the recanting witnesses, or at least some of them, were available to be called at a hearing held for the purpose of letting Mr. Davis show that he was innocent or that there was reasonable doubt. As I understand it, he chose not to call any of the recanting witnesses, nor did he testify in his own behalf.
ReplyDeleteI agree that eyewitness testimony can be in error. In this case there were multiple eyewitnesses which greatly increases the likelihood of a correct identification. Is a mistake still possible? Sure. That is what cross examination is for, and Mr. Davis was given another bite at the apple, but failed to convince the court.
OT, on the racist matter-- I certainly consider the kinds of language you describe as racist. There is no place for that in reasonable discussion. That sort of racism is as bad, or worse, as those who assume that any white person who criticizes any black person over any issue is a racist simply because of that disagreement.
I don't think that stuff is fun or funny, any more than I think that referring to Herman Cain as racist is funny or appropriate, but maybe OT thinks that.
Haven't heard anyone call Herman Cain a racist. He may be for all I know.
ReplyDeleteBo, you and I both had our facts a bit scrambled on the Davis case. There were nine witnesses, seven of whom recanted.
That appeal went from the Georgia court to the US Supreme Court, which ordered the Georgia court to examine the recanting witnesses and determine if Mr. Davis was "clearly innocent", which is a peculiar instruction. The judge said that he did not believe the recantations and so turned away the appeal. He has been widely criticized for using outmoded standards for hearing recanted testimony.
The DA who convicted Davis says that "someone" got to the witnesses and persuaded them to recant and called the whole thing a "circus". He would, wouldn't he? Of course, he can offer no proof of his charges.
As long as we have the death penalty, we will have these hideous moments of doubt. This kind of stuff was OK when the whole tribe was barbarians, but some of us aren't any more.
Hayes raped and strangled Petit's wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48. Their two daughters, Hayley, 17 and Michaela, 11 were tied to their beds for hours and terrorized.
ReplyDeleteKomisarjevsky has admitted to sexually molesting Michaela.
The two men then poured gasoline throughout the house and set it on fire.
_________________________
I think somebody has got the 'barbarians' confused.
Good evening, folks!
ReplyDeleteThe Davis case is testimony in favor of abolishing the death penalty. The judge didn't believe the recantations? He didn't believe that those recantations, regardless of his disbelief, might have moved the matter out of the realm of "beyond the shadow of a doubt." Davis may well have been guilty, but "may well have been guilty" is not a basis for execution. That execution shames us.
The brutalization and murder of Mrs. Hawke-Petit and her daughters was an atrocity. Emotionally, I'd pull the trigger on the scum who committed the crimes. Would that I could have been there. I am a very accurate trigger-puller. But, the crime has been committed and is now past. The kllers are in prison, and will be there till natural (or inmate-assisted) death. The barbarians are now defenseless against the state's executioners. Killing them is murder, IMO. LWOP is sufficient.
And, there are a lot of fathers of daughters in prison . . .
OT, the racism you cite stretches across party lines. I know a number of straight-ticket Dems who voted for President Obama who nonetheless use the N-word.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, I frequently traveled to Pittsburgh for Steelers games. My acquaintances there were dyed-in-the-wool union Dems, believe it or not. They were good guys, except some tossed the N-word around like a loose football. They were startled that I was uncomfortable about that, and eventually would avoid the topic in my presence, couldn't understand why a "good southern boy" was squeamish.
The judge did not believe the recantations because they were submitted by affidavit, not subject to cross-examination. Affidavits carry very little weight for at least a couple of reasons. First, as stated above, they cannot be cross-examined. One cannot tell what was left out of the affidavit and what the motivations were behind it. Generally, affidavits are based on statements made to an attorney, who then prepares the actual affidavit, which the party then signs.
ReplyDeleteStab, a jury had already found Davis guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (not the "shadow of a doubt" we often hear about as the standard for guilt).
Mr. Davis could have called the recanting witnesses to the stand, where they would have been thoroughly questioned about their change of heart. He refused to do so. Mr. Davis, although not legally required to do so, could have taken the stand in his own defense, where he could have established an alibi or some other defense. He elected not to do so.
I wish that Mr. Davis had not committed the murder he did. The choice was all his, and the consequences were of his own making. I regret that.
OT, hereis a line or two from a story that might interest you, if you are fair-minded: Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher said GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is “racist” and “bigoted” for his comment this week that African Americans have been “brainwashed” to not accept conservatism. You can google the story from this, if you wish.
ReplyDeleteOT, the DA doesn't know what the reason for the recantations was. He was denied the opportunity to question the witnesses about those reasons. Troy Davis was entitled to justice. So was the government.
Bo, interesting bit about Cain and Belcher. I would say that neither distinguished himself in this exchange.
ReplyDeleteI am baffled by Belcher's charge of racism, but equally as baffled by Cain's statement.
Considering the treatment of blacks by conservatives over the last 140 years, no brainwashing would be required to set most blacks against that term.
First, during and after Reconstruction, they were savaged by the southern Democrats, who were routinely and accurately referred to at the time and to this day by historians as "the conservatives."
Then, during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, those same Democratic party "conservatives" converted to the Republican Party and continued savaging blacks at every opportunity.
Some of my black friends are fiscal conservatives, but none of them buys the christian BS social stuff. And all are acutely aware of the game being played with voter ID, because many of them come from the same background as those being targeted.
As to the affidavit business, the judge has a good bit of latitude there and could have explored further. He didn't, which is one of the reasons that he is being criticized. As long as there is the slightest doubt, the so-called justice system needs to move to the next step. To fail to do so damages the credibility of the entire system, which this case is doing.
ReplyDeleteWe know that in at least two Texas cases in recent times people have been executed who almost certainly were not guilty of the crimes for which they were executed.
You law and order types are way too trusting of the police and the DA's office.
Good riddence to Davis. He was a cop-killer, and he had twenty years to appeal his case.
ReplyDeleteRecantations are a judicial joke. Sadly, because our news media is engaged in liberal, political propaganda spreading, instead of reporting the facts, we'll probably never know the race of the recanters. However, I'll be willing to bet that the recantations were done by black witnesses that didn't believe in the death penalty for Davis, who is black. The police officer that was gunned down in cold blood was white.
Their justificaton: It's their turn. (Black retribution against the white establishment for past wrongs, ala O.J. Simpson.)