Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.
“… but one day you wake up and it’s you, shambling through a field with a bunch of other putrefying corpses and you’d be thinking “Hey, wait, this has to be some terrible mistake.””
I, Zombie?
Ðámņ it! Now that’s bugging the daylights outa me. I can swear I’ve read or seen just that set up before.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 22, 2007 07:42 PM
Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.
Micha, I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but Jeffrey has an overinflated sense of his importance here. We know you to be a knowledgeable, well-reasoned, and decent person, and your “association” with Jeffrey or anyone else here won’t change that.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 22, 2007 05:06 AM
In my view, a murder takes place whenever one human being intentionally takes the life of another one in a situation where they have not been provoked into action and their own life or well-being (as well as the lives or well-being of others around them) is not in danger from the soon-to-be deceased.
I know I’m risking the wrath of Micha (only a joke! only a joke!), but you cannot simply have your own definition of the word “murder,” at least not if you want meaningful communication to take place. Expanding the definition of the word “murder” the way you have, Rob, removes the distinction between a state-sponsored execution and a drive-by shooting. The problem? Well, an easy, pat answer to your argument that capital punishment is “murder” is, “The guy who committed the drive-by shooting didn’t show his victims any mercy. We shouldn’t show him any mercy either.”
The best arguments against the death penalty are rooted in a clear understanding of what the death penalty is and is not. These include: the lack of any strong statistical evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect; instances of wrongful executions which demonstrate the fallibility of the legal system; and the uneven application of the death penalty, with non-whites receiving it far more often than whites. None of these arguments conflate capital punishment and murder.
“Semantics” is often used as if it were synonymous with “trivial.” But semantics is about the meanings of words, and in the case of a debate about the death penalty is anything but trivial.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 22, 2007 06:38 PM
Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.
You’re being too simplistic. The Catholic Church has different levels of teachings. The Catholic prohibition against abortion is a teaching from what is called the Extraordinary Magisterium; teaching at this level are considered “infallible.” The Catholic stance against the death penalty comes from what is called the Ordinary Magisterium, and teachings at this level are not considered infallible.
Micha had it right: you will get nowhere trying to play “stump the Christian.” I am no longer a Catholic, nor any other form of Christian, but again: it is unfair to attempt to paint them into a rhetorical corner. Better by far to debate the death penalty on its own merits.
” Sure, I can see making plans to be a vampire, or a lich, or even a powerful phantasm, but a zombie?”
Bobb, I gotta tell you, I’m lichen’ that way of thinkin’. But then again, I am such a fungi!
(Yeah, yeah, I know, lich is pronounced nothing like lichen at least in the USA, but rather like the Stay Puft marshmallow man, it just popped in there. Nature so abhors a vacuum.)
“Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs “
Jerry, talking to the teachers I know I’d say those two aren’t as disparate as they might first appear. Opinion, Mr. Mulligan? And as for that idea looking so familiar to you, Jerry, sounds like your college experience was not unlike my own.
Watching a few of the news stations at work today, some of the stories dealing with AG Gonzalez, some with the Iraq funding issue, some with other DCisms of varying import, and I thought of this thread. If by some miracle Bush did get caught in that position, I’m sure a day later we’d be getting speeches about how the activity was actually a form of checking someone’s tonsils and the actual activity would be so wrapped up in rhetoric to get back through would be like unwrapping a diamond ring in a series of boxes Chinese doll style ending in a refrigerator box.
Pronouns? The number of PRONOUNS? Seriously? What’s the problem, you think they’re paid more than amateur nouns?
(Sorry, another one I couldn’t resist.)
Rob Brown: You pointed out why I keep reading this site. It makes people actually think. The zombies are fun, too.
Which leads to the obvious question: What is your goal here, Mike? Not a threat or an attempt at coercion, or an implication that you should not be here, or anything else nefarious or hidden agenda-like. Just honest curiosity.
I consider each of my posts valid in itself. Your question would make more sense applied to a post you seek a justification for.
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If this is the incident that ignited your obsessive need to accuse me of things you can’t cite — well, why didn’t you just post the link I had already made available on this site, if that was your threat?
Posted by: Jerry C at November 11, 2006 03:47 PM [indicating he was aware of my site]
“I was in the military….”
Yes, I know. And you had soooo much respect for the military that you have since stated things like you having felt that you were the only reliably sane person there.
Now, go slurp on some chicken soup and let the adults talk.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 11, 2006 09:57 PM [after establishing he was aware of my site]
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
And what post do you cite to demonstrate you supposedly waived the option to post personal info?
Posted by Jerry C at November 23. 2006 06:24 PM
You haven’t answered: If you weren’t talking about posting contact information like my address and phone number — why didn’t you just post the link to my site?
Jeez, Jerry, heaven forbid anyone take any steps to protect their privacy. Take steps to keep your contact info private, get disgust vented on you in retaliation by the cop making you the object of his obsessive attention. No, that isn’t intimidating.
Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments….
Of COURSE I’m making values judgments about trolls.
Oh, as long as your being clear…
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 10:42 PM
…and others here are fun debaters as well.
But you, Jerry, are the master. 😉
It seems to me that being a zombie could be something people would want to become. It’s easy life, no thinking, numbness, no pain, no problems, just brains. In the real world the only way to accomplish that is with drugs, alcohol, really bad TV, or holding on to brainless positions in internet arguments. Who wouldn’t want that.
Not for me but obviously a significant portion of the population has chosen zombiedom of one form or another.
I think one day virtual reality will get to the point where we can hook up our brains to anything we want while our bodies are fed nutrients and our wastes emptied. Zombie Nation.
“Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs “
Jerry, talking to the teachers I know I’d say those two aren’t as disparate as they might first appear. Opinion, Mr. Mulligan? And as for that idea looking so familiar to you, Jerry, sounds like your college experience was not unlike my own.
There’s a tenancy toward obsessive compulsive behavior which works out great with nerdish and geeky behavior. You’ll probably find a higher percentage than average of teachers in weird settings like Learn Klingon Camp and the Democratic Convention.
Go #@%! myself… er… I mean yourself, Bill.
Bill Myers, unless you can show that what I said was untrue, why don’t you keep your mouth shut about it? I said (go look, and you’ll see) “Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.” For this to be wrong: 1. I would have to be insincere in appreciating Micha’s support. You have no way of determining that; or 2. It would have to be a lie that such support would not do Micha any favors. Simplifying all the negatives, that means that Micha’s civility to me would have to be beneficial to his standing with charming fellows like you. That sounds pretty unlikely; or 3. It would have to be foolish for Micha to put no more effort into rehabilitating my reputation. So, Bill Myers, are you sure that: you know when I am sincere and when I am not; you know that Micha’s polite words to me are helpful to his reputation here; or his efforts on my behalf are a really wise move? If you believe such things, you are admitting my correctness about everything – something I think impossible, and I would have assumed you found nauseating.
Who has an inflated notion of his importance here? Are you so great that you should make Micha’s decisions for him? He doesn’t need you for a mommy.
OK, enough talking about trolls. I will try to treat everybody here according to the way they treat me and other people here. Onward to zombies, and maybe goblins, dragons, a few elves, a dwarf….
Bill Myers wrote: “Expanding the definition of the word “murder” the way you have, Rob, removes the distinction between a state-sponsored execution and a drive-by shooting. The problem? Well, an easy, pat answer to your argument that capital punishment is “murder” is, “The guy who committed the drive-by shooting didn’t show his victims any mercy. We shouldn’t show him any mercy either.””
Rob is arguing that capital punishment is not that different from murder, and if we object to murder, we should oppose capital punishment. I think it is a strong argument although I still have some reservations. But I think it is an interesting point.
Bill, I think I know where you’re coming from on this, but could you clarify your point for me.
“The Catholic Church has different levels of teachings. The Catholic prohibition against abortion is a teaching from what is called the Extraordinary Magisterium; teaching at this level are considered “infallible.” The Catholic stance against the death penalty comes from what is called the Ordinary Magisterium, and teachings at this level are not considered infallible.”
I’ve heard about this before but forgot. Thanks for the info. I wonder if it gives Hannity an excuse to disagree with the Church on capital punishment but remain in it?
I can easily believe the Klingon Camp thing. I think four out of five of all of my teachers were Trek and Star Wars fans. Horror is another matter all together though.
I actually had a Sixth Grade English teacher who almost passed out at the image in the Fangoria magazine we were looking at after we’d finished our assignments. Can’t remember what it was, but I remember it got us detention for a week.
I can only think of three teachers I ever knew back in my school days that were horror buffs beyond fawning over King. It wasn’t until I did some extra classes at JTCC for art credits that I had a teacher that knew that a Lovecraft novel wasn’t a romance, Fulci wasn’t a handbag line and that Commander U.S.A. wasn’t a comic book character. I woulda married the woman if only her husband wasn’t a solid wall of muscle ex-marine who taught martial arts at the local ‘Y’. Nice enough guy and a fellow horror freak, but he was one of those people that you pretty much realized could kill you without actually working hard enough to realize that he was doing it.
There is plenty of wiggle room for Hannity on the basic issue–indeed, one could be a good Catholic and consider abortion 100% murder and never consider getting or causing one but still be pro-choice. What makes Hannity so hypocritical is that he was full of righteous fury at Catholic politicians who differed with the Church when he agreed with the Church but when he was suddenly on the opposite side of Catholic teachings it was No Big Deal.
One could even be in agreement with Hannity’s take on the issues and still be disgusted with the sheer hubris of the way he presents them.
I’ve heard about this before but forgot. Thanks for the info. I wonder if it gives Hannity an excuse to disagree with the Church on capital punishment but remain in it?
If it is, then he’s the last person who should stone someone else for doing the same thing on another issue that the church is vocal about.
Oh, and how could I overlook yet another the accusation:
Even better is the statement from your one post [this is wrong — do I get to call you a liar?] where you reference specifically the instance of websites and hate spam from the Malkin incident. You never mentioned peep one about fears of your home number, address or city of residence in any of your ramblings. You did mention your site, hate spam and the like. Just goes to further back the fact that you’re telling lies about the facts from then now or that you’re living in a dementedly dark reality of your own making and you actually believe the fantasy world you’ve constructed.
People are not robots who can process the optimal thing to say when they are attacked, like “I don’t know you” or “fire” — they have to be informed beforehand that what they say will [or won’t] make a difference when they are made to feel cornered.
Maybe the reason you encounter so many spasmoids, Jerry, is because you intimidate people, and in a state of intimidation, people do not make the open access to their reasoning any kind of priority. Maybe if they had some notice someone in law enforcement was about to vent disgust on them, rather than catching them unprepared and ambushing them, you would have less to complain about.
Jeffrey, my experience with Bill has taught me that he does appreciate my attempts to be civil to others. So being civil to you does help my reputation with him and others. However engaging in the kind of argument like the one you are currently involved in is not helping anybody’s reputation and certainly doesn’t help promote civility on the board.
In any case, it is each person’s choice to behave in any way they see fit (in the parameters allowed by PAD), and I certainly can’t order peole how to behave. All I can do is ask people to try to be civil and accomodating to each other as much as possible, except in cases where there is clear hostility that has to be dealt with. I, like most people, also usually tend to respond to hostility with hostility. But I prefer discussions where people try not to be hostile to each other (while I do understand that we all have our angry moments).
Jeffrey, my experience with Bill has taught me that he does appreciate my attempts to be civil to others. So being civil to you does help my reputation with him and others. However engaging in the kind of argument like the one you are currently involved in is not helping anybody’s reputation and certainly doesn’t help promote civility on the board.
In any case, it is each person’s choice to behave in any way they see fit (in the parameters allowed by PAD), and I certainly can’t order peole how to behave. All I can do is ask people to try to be civil and accomodating to each other as much as possible, except in cases where there is clear hostility that has to be dealt with. I, like most people, also usually tend to respond to hostility with hostility. But I prefer discussions where people try not to be hostile to each other (while I do understand that we all have our angry moments).
What makes Hannity so hypocritical is that he was full of righteous fury at Catholic politicians who differed with the Church when he agreed with the Church but when he was suddenly on the opposite side of Catholic teachings it was No Big Deal.
That and the fact that he’s a lying scumbag.
That and the fact that he’s a lying scumbag.
Well, I’m sure that we’re all just taking that one as a given.
I can only think of three teachers I ever knew back in my school days that were horror buffs beyond fawning over King.
Well, I guess I’m the official go to guy at my school for horror. People come and ask me for my opinions on what to rent, which is kind of insane given that I go for what I’m pretty sure is fairly out there material.
Actually right now I’m really into spaghetti westerns and the ilk– THE GREAT SILENCE, DJANGO KILL, and KEOMA (which may have the most addictively awful soundtrack in history. I can’t get it out of my head and I really really want to.)
Oh, and see TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER if you can–amazing. I think it’s a Thai cowboy movie filmed with a color scheme that makes Dario Argento look monochrome.
I’d say that, as Bill cautioned you against the civility you had shown me, he didn’t think it was wise or good for your reputation – something along the lines of “Don’t be dumb enough to fall for that.” That doesn’t sound like a flattering opinion, but it does seem to be a confirmation that I was right in my warning.
I think I remember something of Keoma, if only because of the odd name, from years ago on WTBS. Is that the one that sounds as though the soundtrack is sung by a bunch of guys they just pulled in off of the streets because they couldn’t afford the extra dime to get people with real singing voices?
And other then Django (because I liked Franco in Camalot), my spaghetti western knowledge was limited to a few films with Terence Hill in them because I liked him in Super Fuzz. Hey, I was 10.
Posted by: Micha at May 22, 2007 10:10 PM
Bill, I think I know where you’re coming from on this, but could you clarify your point for me.
I’m not sure I can do any better than I’ve already done. As I’ve said before, that may have more to do with my limitations as a writer than it does with your understanding. But I will try to clarify.
By keeping the term “murder” distinct from the term “capital punishment,” we are able to articulate the differences between the two. Someone who kills another in a drive-by shooting is committing an act of unsanctioned, uncontrolled violence. When someone is executed in the U.S., it happens after a trial by jury (unless they choose to waive that right) and numerous appeals. It is state-sanctioned and very much controlled. The two are clearly not the same. So expanding the term “murder” to include something that so clearly falls outside its definition is a specious argument. Case closed, then?
Well, no. Tell me capital punishment is murder, and I can say — correctly — that you are wrong and end the conversation there. Tell me that capital punishment fails to accomplish the goals that are inherent in such a punishment by its very definition, and you have a very strong argument against the death penalty. But that’s just it: the best arguments against “capital punishment” depend on using the term accurately.
I dunno if that helped or not. I tried my best. 🙂
Bill Myers is correct here. The two questions: “Is capital punishment murder?” and “Is capital punishment justified?” should remain separate. For the first question, the definition of murder is important; Capital punishment is not murder, because it is not the unlawful killing of another person without justification or mitigation. It is lawful, if the law provides for it; This lawfulness is mitigation. The question of its justification is much harder, and I don’t know of a completely satisfying rationale for either position. I favor a very limited use of the death penalty, but also recognize the awfulness of any mistake in its imposition.
Is that the one that sounds as though the soundtrack is sung by a bunch of guys they just pulled in off of the streets because they couldn’t afford the extra dime to get people with real singing voices?
That’s the one, but it’s much worse than you remember.
There are two singers, in the generous definition of the word. One is actually ok, has a kind of Joan Baez thing going there. I think she might have been forced to do this at gunpoint. The other one is what Leonard Cohen would sound like if he were a Mongolian throat singer. And had just accidentally swallowed a bottle of industrial paint solvent and razor blades. The woman sings for most of the movie, then Throaty McGravelvoice shows up, then they both sing while I, frankly, gnaw at my arm to try to find an artery.
Bad enough that they are there in the first place but what really send it into the artery gnawing zone is that when they sing they describe the action that is occurring on the screen! Someone’s father is shot and they start wailing “your fathers dead/ you really loved him/ now you’ll never see him again/ it’s really sad/ oh look, you’re charging at the guys/ who did it/ but there’s too many of them/ one hits you on the head with a shovel/ hey, none of this rhymes/”
Yet I love this movie, hideous soundtrack and all. Great cinematography, they really know how to use the space, always shooting between wagon wheels and whatnot.
It’s a curious thing to me to watch these and realize that the Western is, for all practical purposes, semi-dead as a genre. A few get released every year. This used to be one of the top 5 movie genres! What happened? Did people just get burned out? I think part of it is that horror movies took over the niche that the latter westerns had filled–gore and violence. DJANGO KILL!, CUT THROATS 9, and SOLDIER BLUE were the SAW 3 and HOSTEL 2 of their time. Once the horror movies started ramping up the grue the grindhouse western lost it’s reason to live. And the classic John Ford type were just too old fashioned to appeal to today’s crowd, more’s the pity.
Jeffrey: “I’d say that, as Bill cautioned you against the civility you had shown me, he didn’t think it was wise or good for your reputation – something along the lines of “Don’t be dumb enough to fall for that.” That doesn’t sound like a flattering opinion, but it does seem to be a confirmation that I was right in my warning.”
Jeffrey. Bill didn’t call me dumb. He adviced me that trollish behavior is the norm with you and the other the exception. I prefer to believe the reverse is true and not treat you as a troll except when you behave as one. It is yet to be seen if I’m right about that, but it does not affect my reputation or Bill’s. I think walking away from this subject will help yours.
Jeffrey, you may find this hard to believe but the following post is in no way intended to bait you. Rather, I’m trying to follow the example Micha has set and look for the best rather than assume the worst. So, here goes…
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 23, 2007 06:03 AM
I favor a very limited use of the death penalty, but also recognize the awfulness of any mistake in its imposition.
I am curious: what are the circumstances in which you feel the death penalty is justified?
Re: Capital punishment.
The question: why is it right to distinguish between murder and capital punishment?
1) Bill Myers says: “By keeping the term “murder” distinct from the term “capital punishment,” we are able to articulate the differences between the two. When someone is executed in the U.S., it happens after a trial by jury (unless they choose to waive that right) and numerous appeals. It is state-sanctioned and very much controlled. The two are clearly not the same.”
This argument, standing alone (I know it doesn’t Bill, bare with me) is circular. Rob is asking us to question the distinction on moral grounds. We can’t ask him to abandon this line of argument and maintain this distinction jst in order to maintain the integrity of the dictionary definition and the distinction that exists in our society.
2)Behind the words Bill Myers is making a moral appeal too. There is a moral difference between an act of murder and when society kills a person who has committed a crime. Tis distinction is important if we don’t want to get to a point of moral relativism.
I don’t know if that is a good enough answer to Rob’s moral appeal. He points out that a criminal is already disabled and helpless when he is captured, and therefore killing him is an act of needless brutality.
At this point we can get stuck with two opposing moral appeals and not be able to go any further, which would strengthen Bill’s third argument.
3) “Tell me capital punishment is murder, and I can say — correctly — that you are wrong and end the conversation there. Tell me that capital punishment fails to accomplish the goals that are inherent in such a punishment by its very definition, and you have a very strong argument against the death penalty. But that’s just it: the best arguments against “capital punishment” depend on using the term accurately.”
Bill is saying that by questioning the meaning of our definition of murder, by using this rhetoric tool, Rob is taking us into a dead end. It is better to argue on the specifics of the use of capital punishment.
Ordinarily I would agree. But I can’t help but feel that Rob’s argument is effective in questioning our understanding of what happens when we execute a man.
Anyway, both sides present strong arguments, so it is a hard decision.
Micha: You are right that walking away from the subject is the wisest thing, but I do think that Bill’s advice to you showed a lack of respect for your ability to judge for yourself. As it doesn’t seem that way to you, that’s the end of it.
As you do not seem to resent advice, here’s my contribution: Look at recent posts and determine which contain personal attacks not motivated by recent posts and which are otherwise. I’m not going to pretend many of my past contributions were not aggressive and sometimes offensive, but let’s think in terms of May 2007. Bill’s gnawing that old bone more than it needs.
Posted by: Micha at May 23, 2007 08:04 AM
We can’t ask him to abandon this line of argument and maintain this distinction jst in order to maintain the integrity of the dictionary definition and the distinction that exists in our society.
But that’s not what I’m suggesting. The distinction between the terms exists to reflect the very real distinction between what each of the terms represents. If we expand the term “murder” to include “capital punishment,” we lose the ability to articulate the very real differences inherent in the acts themselves.
I’m against capital punishment. I believe it is immoral. But it is definitely not murder, and to conflate the two serves no purpose in my view.
That said, I’m gonna make this my last word on the subject and if anyone still disagrees with me, we can agree to disagree. 🙂
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 23, 2007 08:15 AM
…but let’s think in terms of May 2007.
I’m quite comfortable that anyone who compares our posts during this time period will see that my behavior has been better than you claim, and yours far worse. I think I’ll leave it at that.
Tell me capital punishment is murder, and I can say — correctly — that you are wrong and end the conversation there. Tell me that capital punishment fails to accomplish the goals that are inherent in such a punishment by its very definition, and you have a very strong argument against the death penalty. But that’s just it: the best arguments against “capital punishment” depend on using the term accurately.
Some war crimes qualify as both capital punishment and murder.
As far as such capital punishments are their own justification, they are accomplishing their goals, which validates them according to the words you present.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at May 23, 2007 08:31 AM
“The distinction between the terms exists to reflect the very real distinction between what each of the terms represents. If we expand the term “murder” to include “capital punishment,” we lose the ability to articulate the very real differences inherent in the acts themselves.”
Rob is asking us to question this distinction. So it is not enough to say that we loose the ability to articulte the difference, You have to show why it is important to maintain the difference that Rob suggests should be erased.
I believe you did do so implicitely in your post, as I said in the second and third parts of my post. I just wanted to brake down and clarify the issue, distinguishing between its conponents. However, I might be guilty of the things we said we should avoid: talking about the words rather than the issue, and unnecessarily nitpicking. In any case, there is no need to belabor the issue. I just suggest that you can strengthen your argument if you focus more on why it is important to distinguish between murder and capital punishment.
A good illustration of the point I am trying to make in the above post is the argument in the US about family and marriage.
In this case some people suggested that the meaning of family and marriage should be expanded to include single parents and homosexual couples, while others felt that it is very important to maintain the distinction. In this case I think the moral appea of homosexuals, who claimed their relationships are similar enough to marriages and families to be considered as such, seems to have been stronger than the counter arguments that expanding the meaning of these words will somehow pose a threat.
The only thing about the death penalty that appeals to me and has a definite value–other than the pure joy of vengeance, which seems to me to be something best overcome–is as a barganing chip. My wife and I are addicted to those true crime shows, Forensic Files and the like. It seems to be a pretty common occurance to have the bad guys confess all to cop a plea that will avoid capital punishment. So rather than being a deterrant it seems to function better as a tool for law enforcement to determine guilt and avoid the risk of the guilty getting off scot-free.
So there’s that. I think you could also argue that certain terrorist activities might best be punished by death so that the criminals are not a tempting target for hostage taking (although one could just as easily nip this in the bud by never ever ever agreeing to any kind of swap. For the life of me, I don’t know why the Israelis have agreed to such things in the past and at such a 1 sided bargain at that).
… when they sing they describe the action that is occurring on the screen! Someone’s father is shot and they start wailing “your fathers dead/ you really loved him…
You know what? If you ever decide to do a campy zombie flick in the spirit of The Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women on the Moon, you could use that for great effect.
A man runs down a darkened corridor with a pack of zombies close behind him. He hits a dead end as the zombies come in to view.
Cue slow, somber music: You’ve hit a dead end/ The end is near/ The Zombies are here.
Man raises empty gun and pulls trigger twice (click, click) before dropping gun…
Now you’re out of bullets/ and they’re closing in.
Music switches to upbeat and jazzy.
And, HEY, the zombies have ya/ They’re grabbing and biting you now/ And, OUCH, the zombies pierced ya/ They’re pulling your guts out like string/ And, LOOK, there’s your liver/ All that clean living sure paid off now….
OK.
Maybe not.
“I don’t know why the Israelis have agreed to such things in the past and at such a 1 sided bargain at that.”
I don’t want to get into a whole discussion about this.It’s enough to say that Israelis are softies when it comes to this. Although there are millions of Israeli citizens, there is sometimes a family like atmosphere, and a very sentimental attitude toward the parents. The families have been capaigning often and successfully. Maybe it’s also because military service is mandatory. There might also be traditional reasons, although I doubt it. But ‘the ransoming of prisoners’ is considered a religious obligation going back to the time when people were kidnapped for ransom by pirates in ancient or medieval times (I’m not sure when).
Anway, the pattern has been established, a price wil be payed, so the only thing to do is to try to prevent kidnappings and to make clear that the consequences of kidnapping will be worse than the benefits.
Oh, I like that…
Bill Myers: I recognize that your question is by no means baiting me. Let’s see if I can respond appropriately. I suppose I support the death penalty in those of the most extreme cases in which guilt is unquestionable. You may suggest that such cases don’t really exist – that some degree of doubt is still possible. That’s a real problem, for which I don’t have a conclusive answer. It seems (to me, at least) appropriate that the very worst – serial killers, sex-torture killers and that sort – suffer this punishment. The risk of wrongful execution is the only factor that makes me unsure of the propriety of a strictly limited death penalty. In other words, I don’t think any injustice is done to rightly-convicted monsters who are executed, but I certainly do think it is terrible to kill the wrong person.
Micha: On the subject of the wisdom, or the reverse, of Israel’s history of disproportionate prisoner/hostage swaps, I think it’s a nearly unavoidable situation, because of a number of traditions and expectations. When the state was established, very high expectations were created: to be an island of democracy in the midst of a region with no such tradition (This has been imperfectly realized, but Israel’s achievements far outstrip its neighbors.); a rebuke to the atrocities of the Holocaust (The hardest-hearted responses would seem unhumanistic.); probably many others as well. Another factor is that, although Israel is geographically Asian, it has extremely deep connections to the European traditions over the past two millennia, including a reverence for the individual which seems absent in many of its opponents. It just doesn’t seem workable to expect Israel to operate on the identical moral plateau of its opponents; If it doesn’t hold to a higher standard it looks like a failure.
It must be frustrating for the government and military to recognize the handicaps they face, but betrayal of their ideals would be a bad mistake.
“The only thing about the death penalty that appeals to me and has a definite value–other than the pure joy of vengeance, which seems to me to be something best overcome–is as a barganing chip. My wife and I are addicted to those true crime shows, Forensic Files and the like. It seems to be a pretty common occurance to have the bad guys confess all to cop a plea that will avoid capital punishment. So rather than being a deterrant it seems to function better as a tool for law enforcement to determine guilt and avoid the risk of the guilty getting off scot-free.”
The problem with this is the same that occurs with all enforcement coercion: if you have an innocent person, facing an aggressive interrogation/prosecution, coupled with an ambivilent jury, and persuasive circumstantial evidnce, that innocent faces the very real possibility of being convicted and sentenced. In that situation, knowing execution is a possiblity, might only serve to coerce a false confession more readily than just a lifetime in prison would.
I’ve always seen state executions as a sign of weakness. It’s like a zero tolerance policy: for certain crimes and offenders, we just wash our hands of all attempts to rehabilitate or confine you. Society has given up on any chance that the offender may offer some good contribution to society any longer, and just cuts them away.
“I’ve always seen state executions as a sign of weakness. It’s like a zero tolerance policy: for certain crimes and offenders, we just wash our hands of all attempts to rehabilitate or confine you. Society has given up on any chance that the offender may offer some good contribution to society any longer, and just cuts them away.”
Considering the number of repeat offenders, it is better to just execute them and be rid of them. Forget about rehabilitation after the first 2 or 3 tries. Although rapists should be executed on the first offense.
“Considering the number of repeat offenders, it is better to just execute them and be rid of them. Forget about rehabilitation after the first 2 or 3 tries. Although rapists should be executed on the first offense.”
If rehabilitation won’t work, just imprison them. Create a working prison system. You can’t make inmates work, but give them better cells, more amenities, privliges, etc., if they contribute to the production system of the prison. Maybe they’ll never be free to walk among society any more, but at least they’ll be able to contribute something, and won’t that be a form of rehab by itself?
Instead, we just put them in cells to rot and waste. It’s almost a kindness to kill them.
I have two comments on Bobb Alfred’s post. First, he says you can’t make inmates work, but somehow they can be made to contribute to the production system of the prison. I don’t understand this. You can (and it certainly has been done before) make them work. That’s sentencing to hard labor. My grasps of economics and penology aren’t sufficient to say whether it’s beneficial, but it can be done. My second comment is more related to the practical aspects of the death penalty. On a gut level, it does make fine sense to execute rapists, but there’s a problem: If the penalty for rape is the same as for felony murder, there is a disincentive for rapists to leave their victims alive to give testimony and see them imprisoned. There is merit in having rape as an aggravating factor in murder sentencing, but not a capital offense of itself. I think rape, without murder, is still a potentially capital offense in U.S. military justice. If there is a distinction to be made with civilian law, it might be the effect such conduct has on unit discipline and battle readiness.
Jeffery, I wasn’t clear, but the system I would implement would be to allow inmates to voluntarily take on work in the prison system. In lieu of an income, they’d get access to better cells, better food, more recreation priviliges. If we make prisons into a self-contained factory with a volunteer force, it would off-set the continued cost of incarceration. For inmates with terms less than life…and I’d make sure that any aggravated or repeat murder/rape crime comes with a life sentence…such working efforts can be used to reduce the sentence.
Can you have work gangs? Sure. I’m not familiar with how often they are used today, but it’s generally not a great idea, and it’s maybe one step removed from slavery. Today we have community service, which is usually something a defendant agrees to as part of a settlement or plea deal. Even when not part of such a compromise, it’s often negotiable as to what exactly that service takes the form of.
It’s well known that involuntary forced labor was once far more widespread in the United States than it is now, but it still exists today. The Uniform Code of Military Justice allows it as a punishment after conviction at court martial, and it is very much still in use. (The most frequently cited example is Lt. William Calley, who was initially sentenced to life at hard labor for his part in the My Lai massacre, although the sentence was reduced several times, and it never amounted to more than three and a half years of house arrest.) The chain gang, which was an element of many states’ penal systems until the 1950s or later, was reintroduced in Alabama and Arizona in the 1990s. Alabama’s use of the system has been suspended because of numerous lawsuits, but Arizona continues to use chain gangs to this day. I don’t know the status of forced labor elsewhere, but I remember seeing work gangs along the roads here in Maryland as recently as the 1960s, and I think rather later.
Bobb, your idea of voluntary labor sounds like a good thing – but not very revolutionary. It is quite common in many prisons; Some consider it excessively harsh punishment to deny prisoners the chance to work, unless the security concerns are overwhelming. (Very little work gets done at Pelican Bay super-max prison in California, where lock-down can extend to at least 23 hours per day!)
Jeffrey, thanks for the info. However, you can’t use military courts and justice as examples…until they are discharged, even military convicts are still part of the military, and have voluntarily relenquished certain rights. Or better put, have voluntarily accepted certain obligations, such as following the chain of command. Military convicts sentenced to hard labor are essentially still following orders…only their orders involve living in a cell, never getting leave, and working crap work over long hours in terrible conditions.
With civilian convict, the Constitution still applies, and you have to be concerned with avoiding cruel and unusual punishment. To many that see forced labor of any kind as slavery, and find slaver abhorent, even the idea of a penal system that uses forced labor as part of the punishment becomes reprehensible.
It’s good to hear that some prisons implement a work system. But I’m sure that’s something tacked on to the primary purpose of the prison, which is simply detention/incarceration. What we should do is build new penal facilities that have the security to perform the incarceration function, but also have an integrated production facilty and a product line. The government contracts out all kinds of things…like all the forms we use. Instead of paying some contractor that money, why not set up a prison that runs a printer service and makes all the forms the government uses?
Involuntary servitude seems to be permitted under these circumstances by the 13th Amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I’m no lawyer, but I would think that, although involuntary servitude is not prohibited for convicted criminals, the 13th Amendment would be applicable to the jurisdiction of internment camps outside of the U.S., such as Guantanamo. International pacts cover the treatment of declared POWs, but “Enemy Combatants” – specified as not POWs – could well be protected by the first Section, which prohibits involuntary servitude not otherwise permitted in any place subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If Congress wished to stand up for itself, I think it could pass legislation under the Second Section.
• 
Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.
“… but one day you wake up and it’s you, shambling through a field with a bunch of other putrefying corpses and you’d be thinking “Hey, wait, this has to be some terrible mistake.””
I, Zombie?
Ðámņ it! Now that’s bugging the daylights outa me. I can swear I’ve read or seen just that set up before.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 22, 2007 07:42 PM
Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.
Micha, I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but Jeffrey has an overinflated sense of his importance here. We know you to be a knowledgeable, well-reasoned, and decent person, and your “association” with Jeffrey or anyone else here won’t change that.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 22, 2007 05:06 AM
In my view, a murder takes place whenever one human being intentionally takes the life of another one in a situation where they have not been provoked into action and their own life or well-being (as well as the lives or well-being of others around them) is not in danger from the soon-to-be deceased.
I know I’m risking the wrath of Micha (only a joke! only a joke!), but you cannot simply have your own definition of the word “murder,” at least not if you want meaningful communication to take place. Expanding the definition of the word “murder” the way you have, Rob, removes the distinction between a state-sponsored execution and a drive-by shooting. The problem? Well, an easy, pat answer to your argument that capital punishment is “murder” is, “The guy who committed the drive-by shooting didn’t show his victims any mercy. We shouldn’t show him any mercy either.”
The best arguments against the death penalty are rooted in a clear understanding of what the death penalty is and is not. These include: the lack of any strong statistical evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect; instances of wrongful executions which demonstrate the fallibility of the legal system; and the uneven application of the death penalty, with non-whites receiving it far more often than whites. None of these arguments conflate capital punishment and murder.
“Semantics” is often used as if it were synonymous with “trivial.” But semantics is about the meanings of words, and in the case of a debate about the death penalty is anything but trivial.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 22, 2007 06:38 PM
Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.
You’re being too simplistic. The Catholic Church has different levels of teachings. The Catholic prohibition against abortion is a teaching from what is called the Extraordinary Magisterium; teaching at this level are considered “infallible.” The Catholic stance against the death penalty comes from what is called the Ordinary Magisterium, and teachings at this level are not considered infallible.
Micha had it right: you will get nowhere trying to play “stump the Christian.” I am no longer a Catholic, nor any other form of Christian, but again: it is unfair to attempt to paint them into a rhetorical corner. Better by far to debate the death penalty on its own merits.
” Sure, I can see making plans to be a vampire, or a lich, or even a powerful phantasm, but a zombie?”
Bobb, I gotta tell you, I’m lichen’ that way of thinkin’. But then again, I am such a fungi!
(Yeah, yeah, I know, lich is pronounced nothing like lichen at least in the USA, but rather like the Stay Puft marshmallow man, it just popped in there. Nature so abhors a vacuum.)
“Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs “
Jerry, talking to the teachers I know I’d say those two aren’t as disparate as they might first appear. Opinion, Mr. Mulligan? And as for that idea looking so familiar to you, Jerry, sounds like your college experience was not unlike my own.
Watching a few of the news stations at work today, some of the stories dealing with AG Gonzalez, some with the Iraq funding issue, some with other DCisms of varying import, and I thought of this thread. If by some miracle Bush did get caught in that position, I’m sure a day later we’d be getting speeches about how the activity was actually a form of checking someone’s tonsils and the actual activity would be so wrapped up in rhetoric to get back through would be like unwrapping a diamond ring in a series of boxes Chinese doll style ending in a refrigerator box.
Pronouns? The number of PRONOUNS? Seriously? What’s the problem, you think they’re paid more than amateur nouns?
(Sorry, another one I couldn’t resist.)
Rob Brown: You pointed out why I keep reading this site. It makes people actually think. The zombies are fun, too.
I consider each of my posts valid in itself. Your question would make more sense applied to a post you seek a justification for.
And what post do you cite to demonstrate you supposedly waived the option to post personal info?
You haven’t answered: If you weren’t talking about posting contact information like my address and phone number — why didn’t you just post the link to my site?
Jeez, Jerry, heaven forbid anyone take any steps to protect their privacy. Take steps to keep your contact info private, get disgust vented on you in retaliation by the cop making you the object of his obsessive attention. No, that isn’t intimidating.
Oh, as long as your being clear…
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 10:42 PM
…and others here are fun debaters as well.
But you, Jerry, are the master. 😉
It seems to me that being a zombie could be something people would want to become. It’s easy life, no thinking, numbness, no pain, no problems, just brains. In the real world the only way to accomplish that is with drugs, alcohol, really bad TV, or holding on to brainless positions in internet arguments. Who wouldn’t want that.
Not for me but obviously a significant portion of the population has chosen zombiedom of one form or another.
I think one day virtual reality will get to the point where we can hook up our brains to anything we want while our bodies are fed nutrients and our wastes emptied. Zombie Nation.
“Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs “
Jerry, talking to the teachers I know I’d say those two aren’t as disparate as they might first appear. Opinion, Mr. Mulligan? And as for that idea looking so familiar to you, Jerry, sounds like your college experience was not unlike my own.
There’s a tenancy toward obsessive compulsive behavior which works out great with nerdish and geeky behavior. You’ll probably find a higher percentage than average of teachers in weird settings like Learn Klingon Camp and the Democratic Convention.
Go #@%! myself… er… I mean yourself, Bill.
Bill Myers, unless you can show that what I said was untrue, why don’t you keep your mouth shut about it? I said (go look, and you’ll see) “Micha: While I appreciate your support, it is certain to do you no favors on this site. Let’s continue to speak civilly and not put too much effort into my rehabilitation.” For this to be wrong: 1. I would have to be insincere in appreciating Micha’s support. You have no way of determining that; or 2. It would have to be a lie that such support would not do Micha any favors. Simplifying all the negatives, that means that Micha’s civility to me would have to be beneficial to his standing with charming fellows like you. That sounds pretty unlikely; or 3. It would have to be foolish for Micha to put no more effort into rehabilitating my reputation. So, Bill Myers, are you sure that: you know when I am sincere and when I am not; you know that Micha’s polite words to me are helpful to his reputation here; or his efforts on my behalf are a really wise move? If you believe such things, you are admitting my correctness about everything – something I think impossible, and I would have assumed you found nauseating.
Who has an inflated notion of his importance here? Are you so great that you should make Micha’s decisions for him? He doesn’t need you for a mommy.
OK, enough talking about trolls. I will try to treat everybody here according to the way they treat me and other people here. Onward to zombies, and maybe goblins, dragons, a few elves, a dwarf….
Bill Myers wrote: “Expanding the definition of the word “murder” the way you have, Rob, removes the distinction between a state-sponsored execution and a drive-by shooting. The problem? Well, an easy, pat answer to your argument that capital punishment is “murder” is, “The guy who committed the drive-by shooting didn’t show his victims any mercy. We shouldn’t show him any mercy either.””
Rob is arguing that capital punishment is not that different from murder, and if we object to murder, we should oppose capital punishment. I think it is a strong argument although I still have some reservations. But I think it is an interesting point.
Bill, I think I know where you’re coming from on this, but could you clarify your point for me.
“The Catholic Church has different levels of teachings. The Catholic prohibition against abortion is a teaching from what is called the Extraordinary Magisterium; teaching at this level are considered “infallible.” The Catholic stance against the death penalty comes from what is called the Ordinary Magisterium, and teachings at this level are not considered infallible.”
I’ve heard about this before but forgot. Thanks for the info. I wonder if it gives Hannity an excuse to disagree with the Church on capital punishment but remain in it?
I can easily believe the Klingon Camp thing. I think four out of five of all of my teachers were Trek and Star Wars fans. Horror is another matter all together though.
I actually had a Sixth Grade English teacher who almost passed out at the image in the Fangoria magazine we were looking at after we’d finished our assignments. Can’t remember what it was, but I remember it got us detention for a week.
I can only think of three teachers I ever knew back in my school days that were horror buffs beyond fawning over King. It wasn’t until I did some extra classes at JTCC for art credits that I had a teacher that knew that a Lovecraft novel wasn’t a romance, Fulci wasn’t a handbag line and that Commander U.S.A. wasn’t a comic book character. I woulda married the woman if only her husband wasn’t a solid wall of muscle ex-marine who taught martial arts at the local ‘Y’. Nice enough guy and a fellow horror freak, but he was one of those people that you pretty much realized could kill you without actually working hard enough to realize that he was doing it.
There is plenty of wiggle room for Hannity on the basic issue–indeed, one could be a good Catholic and consider abortion 100% murder and never consider getting or causing one but still be pro-choice. What makes Hannity so hypocritical is that he was full of righteous fury at Catholic politicians who differed with the Church when he agreed with the Church but when he was suddenly on the opposite side of Catholic teachings it was No Big Deal.
One could even be in agreement with Hannity’s take on the issues and still be disgusted with the sheer hubris of the way he presents them.
I’ve heard about this before but forgot. Thanks for the info. I wonder if it gives Hannity an excuse to disagree with the Church on capital punishment but remain in it?
If it is, then he’s the last person who should stone someone else for doing the same thing on another issue that the church is vocal about.
Oh, and how could I overlook yet another the accusation:
People are not robots who can process the optimal thing to say when they are attacked, like “I don’t know you” or “fire” — they have to be informed beforehand that what they say will [or won’t] make a difference when they are made to feel cornered.
Maybe the reason you encounter so many spasmoids, Jerry, is because you intimidate people, and in a state of intimidation, people do not make the open access to their reasoning any kind of priority. Maybe if they had some notice someone in law enforcement was about to vent disgust on them, rather than catching them unprepared and ambushing them, you would have less to complain about.
Jeffrey, my experience with Bill has taught me that he does appreciate my attempts to be civil to others. So being civil to you does help my reputation with him and others. However engaging in the kind of argument like the one you are currently involved in is not helping anybody’s reputation and certainly doesn’t help promote civility on the board.
In any case, it is each person’s choice to behave in any way they see fit (in the parameters allowed by PAD), and I certainly can’t order peole how to behave. All I can do is ask people to try to be civil and accomodating to each other as much as possible, except in cases where there is clear hostility that has to be dealt with. I, like most people, also usually tend to respond to hostility with hostility. But I prefer discussions where people try not to be hostile to each other (while I do understand that we all have our angry moments).
Jeffrey, my experience with Bill has taught me that he does appreciate my attempts to be civil to others. So being civil to you does help my reputation with him and others. However engaging in the kind of argument like the one you are currently involved in is not helping anybody’s reputation and certainly doesn’t help promote civility on the board.
In any case, it is each person’s choice to behave in any way they see fit (in the parameters allowed by PAD), and I certainly can’t order peole how to behave. All I can do is ask people to try to be civil and accomodating to each other as much as possible, except in cases where there is clear hostility that has to be dealt with. I, like most people, also usually tend to respond to hostility with hostility. But I prefer discussions where people try not to be hostile to each other (while I do understand that we all have our angry moments).
What makes Hannity so hypocritical is that he was full of righteous fury at Catholic politicians who differed with the Church when he agreed with the Church but when he was suddenly on the opposite side of Catholic teachings it was No Big Deal.
That and the fact that he’s a lying scumbag.
That and the fact that he’s a lying scumbag.
Well, I’m sure that we’re all just taking that one as a given.
I can only think of three teachers I ever knew back in my school days that were horror buffs beyond fawning over King.
Well, I guess I’m the official go to guy at my school for horror. People come and ask me for my opinions on what to rent, which is kind of insane given that I go for what I’m pretty sure is fairly out there material.
Actually right now I’m really into spaghetti westerns and the ilk– THE GREAT SILENCE, DJANGO KILL, and KEOMA (which may have the most addictively awful soundtrack in history. I can’t get it out of my head and I really really want to.)
Oh, and see TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER if you can–amazing. I think it’s a Thai cowboy movie filmed with a color scheme that makes Dario Argento look monochrome.
I’d say that, as Bill cautioned you against the civility you had shown me, he didn’t think it was wise or good for your reputation – something along the lines of “Don’t be dumb enough to fall for that.” That doesn’t sound like a flattering opinion, but it does seem to be a confirmation that I was right in my warning.
I think I remember something of Keoma, if only because of the odd name, from years ago on WTBS. Is that the one that sounds as though the soundtrack is sung by a bunch of guys they just pulled in off of the streets because they couldn’t afford the extra dime to get people with real singing voices?
And other then Django (because I liked Franco in Camalot), my spaghetti western knowledge was limited to a few films with Terence Hill in them because I liked him in Super Fuzz. Hey, I was 10.
Posted by: Micha at May 22, 2007 10:10 PM
Bill, I think I know where you’re coming from on this, but could you clarify your point for me.
I’m not sure I can do any better than I’ve already done. As I’ve said before, that may have more to do with my limitations as a writer than it does with your understanding. But I will try to clarify.
By keeping the term “murder” distinct from the term “capital punishment,” we are able to articulate the differences between the two. Someone who kills another in a drive-by shooting is committing an act of unsanctioned, uncontrolled violence. When someone is executed in the U.S., it happens after a trial by jury (unless they choose to waive that right) and numerous appeals. It is state-sanctioned and very much controlled. The two are clearly not the same. So expanding the term “murder” to include something that so clearly falls outside its definition is a specious argument. Case closed, then?
Well, no. Tell me capital punishment is murder, and I can say — correctly — that you are wrong and end the conversation there. Tell me that capital punishment fails to accomplish the goals that are inherent in such a punishment by its very definition, and you have a very strong argument against the death penalty. But that’s just it: the best arguments against “capital punishment” depend on using the term accurately.
I dunno if that helped or not. I tried my best. 🙂
Bill Myers is correct here. The two questions: “Is capital punishment murder?” and “Is capital punishment justified?” should remain separate. For the first question, the definition of murder is important; Capital punishment is not murder, because it is not the unlawful killing of another person without justification or mitigation. It is lawful, if the law provides for it; This lawfulness is mitigation. The question of its justification is much harder, and I don’t know of a completely satisfying rationale for either position. I favor a very limited use of the death penalty, but also recognize the awfulness of any mistake in its imposition.
Is that the one that sounds as though the soundtrack is sung by a bunch of guys they just pulled in off of the streets because they couldn’t afford the extra dime to get people with real singing voices?
That’s the one, but it’s much worse than you remember.
There are two singers, in the generous definition of the word. One is actually ok, has a kind of Joan Baez thing going there. I think she might have been forced to do this at gunpoint. The other one is what Leonard Cohen would sound like if he were a Mongolian throat singer. And had just accidentally swallowed a bottle of industrial paint solvent and razor blades. The woman sings for most of the movie, then Throaty McGravelvoice shows up, then they both sing while I, frankly, gnaw at my arm to try to find an artery.
Bad enough that they are there in the first place but what really send it into the artery gnawing zone is that when they sing they describe the action that is occurring on the screen! Someone’s father is shot and they start wailing “your fathers dead/ you really loved him/ now you’ll never see him again/ it’s really sad/ oh look, you’re charging at the guys/ who did it/ but there’s too many of them/ one hits you on the head with a shovel/ hey, none of this rhymes/”
Yet I love this movie, hideous soundtrack and all. Great cinematography, they really know how to use the space, always shooting between wagon wheels and whatnot.
It’s a curious thing to me to watch these and realize that the Western is, for all practical purposes, semi-dead as a genre. A few get released every year. This used to be one of the top 5 movie genres! What happened? Did people just get burned out? I think part of it is that horror movies took over the niche that the latter westerns had filled–gore and violence. DJANGO KILL!, CUT THROATS 9, and SOLDIER BLUE were the SAW 3 and HOSTEL 2 of their time. Once the horror movies started ramping up the grue the grindhouse western lost it’s reason to live. And the classic John Ford type were just too old fashioned to appeal to today’s crowd, more’s the pity.
Jeffrey: “I’d say that, as Bill cautioned you against the civility you had shown me, he didn’t think it was wise or good for your reputation – something along the lines of “Don’t be dumb enough to fall for that.” That doesn’t sound like a flattering opinion, but it does seem to be a confirmation that I was right in my warning.”
Jeffrey. Bill didn’t call me dumb. He adviced me that trollish behavior is the norm with you and the other the exception. I prefer to believe the reverse is true and not treat you as a troll except when you behave as one. It is yet to be seen if I’m right about that, but it does not affect my reputation or Bill’s. I think walking away from this subject will help yours.
Jeffrey, you may find this hard to believe but the following post is in no way intended to bait you. Rather, I’m trying to follow the example Micha has set and look for the best rather than assume the worst. So, here goes…
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 23, 2007 06:03 AM
I favor a very limited use of the death penalty, but also recognize the awfulness of any mistake in its imposition.
I am curious: what are the circumstances in which you feel the death penalty is justified?
Re: Capital punishment.
The question: why is it right to distinguish between murder and capital punishment?
1) Bill Myers says: “By keeping the term “murder” distinct from the term “capital punishment,” we are able to articulate the differences between the two. When someone is executed in the U.S., it happens after a trial by jury (unless they choose to waive that right) and numerous appeals. It is state-sanctioned and very much controlled. The two are clearly not the same.”
This argument, standing alone (I know it doesn’t Bill, bare with me) is circular. Rob is asking us to question the distinction on moral grounds. We can’t ask him to abandon this line of argument and maintain this distinction jst in order to maintain the integrity of the dictionary definition and the distinction that exists in our society.
2)Behind the words Bill Myers is making a moral appeal too. There is a moral difference between an act of murder and when society kills a person who has committed a crime. Tis distinction is important if we don’t want to get to a point of moral relativism.
I don’t know if that is a good enough answer to Rob’s moral appeal. He points out that a criminal is already disabled and helpless when he is captured, and therefore killing him is an act of needless brutality.
At this point we can get stuck with two opposing moral appeals and not be able to go any further, which would strengthen Bill’s third argument.
3) “Tell me capital punishment is murder, and I can say — correctly — that you are wrong and end the conversation there. Tell me that capital punishment fails to accomplish the goals that are inherent in such a punishment by its very definition, and you have a very strong argument against the death penalty. But that’s just it: the best arguments against “capital punishment” depend on using the term accurately.”
Bill is saying that by questioning the meaning of our definition of murder, by using this rhetoric tool, Rob is taking us into a dead end. It is better to argue on the specifics of the use of capital punishment.
Ordinarily I would agree. But I can’t help but feel that Rob’s argument is effective in questioning our understanding of what happens when we execute a man.
Anyway, both sides present strong arguments, so it is a hard decision.
Micha: You are right that walking away from the subject is the wisest thing, but I do think that Bill’s advice to you showed a lack of respect for your ability to judge for yourself. As it doesn’t seem that way to you, that’s the end of it.
As you do not seem to resent advice, here’s my contribution: Look at recent posts and determine which contain personal attacks not motivated by recent posts and which are otherwise. I’m not going to pretend many of my past contributions were not aggressive and sometimes offensive, but let’s think in terms of May 2007. Bill’s gnawing that old bone more than it needs.
Posted by: Micha at May 23, 2007 08:04 AM
We can’t ask him to abandon this line of argument and maintain this distinction jst in order to maintain the integrity of the dictionary definition and the distinction that exists in our society.
But that’s not what I’m suggesting. The distinction between the terms exists to reflect the very real distinction between what each of the terms represents. If we expand the term “murder” to include “capital punishment,” we lose the ability to articulate the very real differences inherent in the acts themselves.
I’m against capital punishment. I believe it is immoral. But it is definitely not murder, and to conflate the two serves no purpose in my view.
That said, I’m gonna make this my last word on the subject and if anyone still disagrees with me, we can agree to disagree. 🙂
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 23, 2007 08:15 AM
…but let’s think in terms of May 2007.
I’m quite comfortable that anyone who compares our posts during this time period will see that my behavior has been better than you claim, and yours far worse. I think I’ll leave it at that.
Some war crimes qualify as both capital punishment and murder.
As far as such capital punishments are their own justification, they are accomplishing their goals, which validates them according to the words you present.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at May 23, 2007 08:31 AM
“The distinction between the terms exists to reflect the very real distinction between what each of the terms represents. If we expand the term “murder” to include “capital punishment,” we lose the ability to articulate the very real differences inherent in the acts themselves.”
Rob is asking us to question this distinction. So it is not enough to say that we loose the ability to articulte the difference, You have to show why it is important to maintain the difference that Rob suggests should be erased.
I believe you did do so implicitely in your post, as I said in the second and third parts of my post. I just wanted to brake down and clarify the issue, distinguishing between its conponents. However, I might be guilty of the things we said we should avoid: talking about the words rather than the issue, and unnecessarily nitpicking. In any case, there is no need to belabor the issue. I just suggest that you can strengthen your argument if you focus more on why it is important to distinguish between murder and capital punishment.
A good illustration of the point I am trying to make in the above post is the argument in the US about family and marriage.
In this case some people suggested that the meaning of family and marriage should be expanded to include single parents and homosexual couples, while others felt that it is very important to maintain the distinction. In this case I think the moral appea of homosexuals, who claimed their relationships are similar enough to marriages and families to be considered as such, seems to have been stronger than the counter arguments that expanding the meaning of these words will somehow pose a threat.
The only thing about the death penalty that appeals to me and has a definite value–other than the pure joy of vengeance, which seems to me to be something best overcome–is as a barganing chip. My wife and I are addicted to those true crime shows, Forensic Files and the like. It seems to be a pretty common occurance to have the bad guys confess all to cop a plea that will avoid capital punishment. So rather than being a deterrant it seems to function better as a tool for law enforcement to determine guilt and avoid the risk of the guilty getting off scot-free.
So there’s that. I think you could also argue that certain terrorist activities might best be punished by death so that the criminals are not a tempting target for hostage taking (although one could just as easily nip this in the bud by never ever ever agreeing to any kind of swap. For the life of me, I don’t know why the Israelis have agreed to such things in the past and at such a 1 sided bargain at that).
… when they sing they describe the action that is occurring on the screen! Someone’s father is shot and they start wailing “your fathers dead/ you really loved him…
You know what? If you ever decide to do a campy zombie flick in the spirit of The Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women on the Moon, you could use that for great effect.
A man runs down a darkened corridor with a pack of zombies close behind him. He hits a dead end as the zombies come in to view.
Cue slow, somber music:
You’ve hit a dead end/ The end is near/ The Zombies are here.
Man raises empty gun and pulls trigger twice (click, click) before dropping gun…
Now you’re out of bullets/ and they’re closing in.
Music switches to upbeat and jazzy.
And, HEY, the zombies have ya/ They’re grabbing and biting you now/ And, OUCH, the zombies pierced ya/ They’re pulling your guts out like string/ And, LOOK, there’s your liver/ All that clean living sure paid off now….
OK.
Maybe not.
“I don’t know why the Israelis have agreed to such things in the past and at such a 1 sided bargain at that.”
I don’t want to get into a whole discussion about this.It’s enough to say that Israelis are softies when it comes to this. Although there are millions of Israeli citizens, there is sometimes a family like atmosphere, and a very sentimental attitude toward the parents. The families have been capaigning often and successfully. Maybe it’s also because military service is mandatory. There might also be traditional reasons, although I doubt it. But ‘the ransoming of prisoners’ is considered a religious obligation going back to the time when people were kidnapped for ransom by pirates in ancient or medieval times (I’m not sure when).
Anway, the pattern has been established, a price wil be payed, so the only thing to do is to try to prevent kidnappings and to make clear that the consequences of kidnapping will be worse than the benefits.
Oh, I like that…
Bill Myers: I recognize that your question is by no means baiting me. Let’s see if I can respond appropriately. I suppose I support the death penalty in those of the most extreme cases in which guilt is unquestionable. You may suggest that such cases don’t really exist – that some degree of doubt is still possible. That’s a real problem, for which I don’t have a conclusive answer. It seems (to me, at least) appropriate that the very worst – serial killers, sex-torture killers and that sort – suffer this punishment. The risk of wrongful execution is the only factor that makes me unsure of the propriety of a strictly limited death penalty. In other words, I don’t think any injustice is done to rightly-convicted monsters who are executed, but I certainly do think it is terrible to kill the wrong person.
Micha: On the subject of the wisdom, or the reverse, of Israel’s history of disproportionate prisoner/hostage swaps, I think it’s a nearly unavoidable situation, because of a number of traditions and expectations. When the state was established, very high expectations were created: to be an island of democracy in the midst of a region with no such tradition (This has been imperfectly realized, but Israel’s achievements far outstrip its neighbors.); a rebuke to the atrocities of the Holocaust (The hardest-hearted responses would seem unhumanistic.); probably many others as well. Another factor is that, although Israel is geographically Asian, it has extremely deep connections to the European traditions over the past two millennia, including a reverence for the individual which seems absent in many of its opponents. It just doesn’t seem workable to expect Israel to operate on the identical moral plateau of its opponents; If it doesn’t hold to a higher standard it looks like a failure.
It must be frustrating for the government and military to recognize the handicaps they face, but betrayal of their ideals would be a bad mistake.
“The only thing about the death penalty that appeals to me and has a definite value–other than the pure joy of vengeance, which seems to me to be something best overcome–is as a barganing chip. My wife and I are addicted to those true crime shows, Forensic Files and the like. It seems to be a pretty common occurance to have the bad guys confess all to cop a plea that will avoid capital punishment. So rather than being a deterrant it seems to function better as a tool for law enforcement to determine guilt and avoid the risk of the guilty getting off scot-free.”
The problem with this is the same that occurs with all enforcement coercion: if you have an innocent person, facing an aggressive interrogation/prosecution, coupled with an ambivilent jury, and persuasive circumstantial evidnce, that innocent faces the very real possibility of being convicted and sentenced. In that situation, knowing execution is a possiblity, might only serve to coerce a false confession more readily than just a lifetime in prison would.
I’ve always seen state executions as a sign of weakness. It’s like a zero tolerance policy: for certain crimes and offenders, we just wash our hands of all attempts to rehabilitate or confine you. Society has given up on any chance that the offender may offer some good contribution to society any longer, and just cuts them away.
“I’ve always seen state executions as a sign of weakness. It’s like a zero tolerance policy: for certain crimes and offenders, we just wash our hands of all attempts to rehabilitate or confine you. Society has given up on any chance that the offender may offer some good contribution to society any longer, and just cuts them away.”
Considering the number of repeat offenders, it is better to just execute them and be rid of them. Forget about rehabilitation after the first 2 or 3 tries. Although rapists should be executed on the first offense.
“Considering the number of repeat offenders, it is better to just execute them and be rid of them. Forget about rehabilitation after the first 2 or 3 tries. Although rapists should be executed on the first offense.”
If rehabilitation won’t work, just imprison them. Create a working prison system. You can’t make inmates work, but give them better cells, more amenities, privliges, etc., if they contribute to the production system of the prison. Maybe they’ll never be free to walk among society any more, but at least they’ll be able to contribute something, and won’t that be a form of rehab by itself?
Instead, we just put them in cells to rot and waste. It’s almost a kindness to kill them.
I have two comments on Bobb Alfred’s post. First, he says you can’t make inmates work, but somehow they can be made to contribute to the production system of the prison. I don’t understand this. You can (and it certainly has been done before) make them work. That’s sentencing to hard labor. My grasps of economics and penology aren’t sufficient to say whether it’s beneficial, but it can be done. My second comment is more related to the practical aspects of the death penalty. On a gut level, it does make fine sense to execute rapists, but there’s a problem: If the penalty for rape is the same as for felony murder, there is a disincentive for rapists to leave their victims alive to give testimony and see them imprisoned. There is merit in having rape as an aggravating factor in murder sentencing, but not a capital offense of itself. I think rape, without murder, is still a potentially capital offense in U.S. military justice. If there is a distinction to be made with civilian law, it might be the effect such conduct has on unit discipline and battle readiness.
Jeffery, I wasn’t clear, but the system I would implement would be to allow inmates to voluntarily take on work in the prison system. In lieu of an income, they’d get access to better cells, better food, more recreation priviliges. If we make prisons into a self-contained factory with a volunteer force, it would off-set the continued cost of incarceration. For inmates with terms less than life…and I’d make sure that any aggravated or repeat murder/rape crime comes with a life sentence…such working efforts can be used to reduce the sentence.
Can you have work gangs? Sure. I’m not familiar with how often they are used today, but it’s generally not a great idea, and it’s maybe one step removed from slavery. Today we have community service, which is usually something a defendant agrees to as part of a settlement or plea deal. Even when not part of such a compromise, it’s often negotiable as to what exactly that service takes the form of.
It’s well known that involuntary forced labor was once far more widespread in the United States than it is now, but it still exists today. The Uniform Code of Military Justice allows it as a punishment after conviction at court martial, and it is very much still in use. (The most frequently cited example is Lt. William Calley, who was initially sentenced to life at hard labor for his part in the My Lai massacre, although the sentence was reduced several times, and it never amounted to more than three and a half years of house arrest.) The chain gang, which was an element of many states’ penal systems until the 1950s or later, was reintroduced in Alabama and Arizona in the 1990s. Alabama’s use of the system has been suspended because of numerous lawsuits, but Arizona continues to use chain gangs to this day. I don’t know the status of forced labor elsewhere, but I remember seeing work gangs along the roads here in Maryland as recently as the 1960s, and I think rather later.
Bobb, your idea of voluntary labor sounds like a good thing – but not very revolutionary. It is quite common in many prisons; Some consider it excessively harsh punishment to deny prisoners the chance to work, unless the security concerns are overwhelming. (Very little work gets done at Pelican Bay super-max prison in California, where lock-down can extend to at least 23 hours per day!)
Jeffrey, thanks for the info. However, you can’t use military courts and justice as examples…until they are discharged, even military convicts are still part of the military, and have voluntarily relenquished certain rights. Or better put, have voluntarily accepted certain obligations, such as following the chain of command. Military convicts sentenced to hard labor are essentially still following orders…only their orders involve living in a cell, never getting leave, and working crap work over long hours in terrible conditions.
With civilian convict, the Constitution still applies, and you have to be concerned with avoiding cruel and unusual punishment. To many that see forced labor of any kind as slavery, and find slaver abhorent, even the idea of a penal system that uses forced labor as part of the punishment becomes reprehensible.
It’s good to hear that some prisons implement a work system. But I’m sure that’s something tacked on to the primary purpose of the prison, which is simply detention/incarceration. What we should do is build new penal facilities that have the security to perform the incarceration function, but also have an integrated production facilty and a product line. The government contracts out all kinds of things…like all the forms we use. Instead of paying some contractor that money, why not set up a prison that runs a printer service and makes all the forms the government uses?
Involuntary servitude seems to be permitted under these circumstances by the 13th Amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I’m no lawyer, but I would think that, although involuntary servitude is not prohibited for convicted criminals, the 13th Amendment would be applicable to the jurisdiction of internment camps outside of the U.S., such as Guantanamo. International pacts cover the treatment of declared POWs, but “Enemy Combatants” – specified as not POWs – could well be protected by the first Section, which prohibits involuntary servitude not otherwise permitted in any place subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If Congress wished to stand up for itself, I think it could pass legislation under the Second Section.