Left and Right or...

[Larry Gude]

...wrong and right?

This board is considered somewhat right of center on the political mass spectrometer which is to say that, typically, the majority opinions in here aren't simply 'right', they are more accurately...correct.

To wit:

In todays Washinton Post there is an editorial...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29232-2004Apr20.html

 

[Tonio]

I consider myself to be somewhat more liberal on social issues and somewhat more conservative on financial issues. Like, legalize gay marriage or at least give civil unions the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but also eliminate welfare and cut taxes.

Larry, from my perspective, I see two squabbling factions who won't even agree on what constitutes truth and fact, let alone on what the facts mean. Personally, I don't like the idea of opinions being right or wong. Two intelligent, rational people can have informed opinions that are completely different. To say that there is only one possible conclusion that an intelligent, rational person can reach on an issue--that sounds too much like political correctness and other attempts to impose orthodoxy.

This columnist may be too liberal for some here, but she raises a good point in this column: http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.reimer13apr13,0,4667997.column

We no longer can speak reasonably to each other on topics about which there is bound to be disagreement. We don't counter an argument, we raise the stakes by breaking out every weapon in an arsenal of venom and personal attack...Have we learned nothing from those who find our politics and our religion so hateful that they are willing to die a martyr's death for the chance to kill as many of us as they can?

 

[darkriver4362]

Well, it can't be good to be liberal on everything or conservative on everything. I think it's good to take each issue seperately and go from there.

 

[SamSpade]

Whenever I get into protracted political discussions with people I disagree with (re: liberals), it usually comes up that anyone with an honest *informed* opinion will choose the liberal one. The only reason why I might choose my opinion is that I am yielding to my own prejudices, emotions and baser instincts. I'm not being "rational".

So it's the same damned thing. But I hear it a lot more from liberals. The only conservative equivalent is one that says that the informed liberal will choose the conservative position, unless he is influenced by some lack of virtue or honesty.

And really? That's the core of the differences. Which values have priority.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by SamSpade
it usually comes up that anyone with an honest *informed* opinion will choose the liberal one.

Yes, too many liberals pat themselves on the back for being supposedly progressive and open-minded. When I hear some conservatives engage in that kind of self-congratulation, it's usually for being supposedly the defenders of patriotism and traditional morality. People on both sides are guilty of that kind of egotism, and yes, it's very off-putting, no matter what your political affiliation.

 

[Larry Gude]

To finish the post...

...I didn't finish my thoughts about the editorial. It was posted prematurely.

The Post reveals an indelible trait of modern liberalism; it's intellectual awkwardness when it comes to crime and punishment.

Now, it is perfectly fine to have a debate about victims’ rights and what they do and don’t and should and shouldn’t mean and the Post is concerned about victims’ rights becoming equal to the accused, which this legislation won’t even remotely come close to. Fine.

The aims of the legislation:

…reasonable and timely notice of proceedings; the right of victims to attend those proceedings and to speak at sentencing, clemency and parole hearings; and the right to seek restitution from perpetrators.”

Big deal. They are simply desires of access.

So, in any event, we can debate them. Where it all falls apart and exposes the failings of the, in essence, anti victims rights argument is in the basic premise:

“The state, after all, is not seeking to deprive the victim of liberty or, in the extreme case, life. The rights of the accused flow out of the jeopardy in which the state puts them”

The implication clearly being that the state IS seeking to deprive the ACCUSED of liberty or, in the extreme case, life.

The rights of the accused flowing from the jeopardy in which the STATE puts them???

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry - I think liberals are a bunch of juvenile idiots. Any valid points they might have are drastically overshadowed by their immature desire to push the envelope and engage in hostile takeover.

Since many of you probably aren't interested in registering on the WashPost (who, in true liberal fashion, now won't let you read a speck without collecting all kinds of personal information so they can spam you), I'll give you the highlights:

What harm can there be in placing victims' rights even with the rights of the accused?

Quite a lot, actually.

...

The fundamental trouble is that victims' rights, if taken seriously, will come at the expense of the rights of the accused.

These are the same people that hold candlelight vigils when some rabid human is put to death. The same people who thought Andrea Yates had a point. The same people who thought Bernhard Goetz was the criminal, not the thugs who accosted him. The same people who think PETA loonies have a right to throw blood on people.

Liberals make me puke.

 

[Larry Gude]

We are at an elevated...

...state of political rancor right now.

Larry, from my perspective, I see two squabbling factions who won't even agree on what constitutes truth and fact

Our political friction has ebb and flooded over the years and the current storm is based squarely on the Clinton shoulders.

Truth and fact? They are the people who want to debate what 'is'...'is'.

The profound need of the left to throw away all sense of reason and common sense for 8 years for the sake of the ego and power of one person does not in and of itself lower the quality of the other sides argument.

Parents will often punish both squabbling kids in an effort to not discern right or wrong. "Both of you stop it!". The kid who started the trouble smiles slyly. The wronged kid is wronged again.

That is the essence of the Posts arguemnt; an inability or perhaps intentional desire to mitigate the rights and arguments of one side in an effort to wish the whole thing away.

 

[Tonio]

Re: To finish the post...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
“The state, after all, is not seeking to deprive the victim of liberty or, in the extreme case, life. The rights of the accused flow out of the jeopardy in which the state puts them”

The implication clearly being that the state IS seeking to deprive the ACCUSED of liberty or, in the extreme case, life.

The rights of the accused flowing from the jeopardy in which the STATE puts them???

Good point.

To play devil's advocate, I think the Post was trying to emphasize that accused persons are on trial because the state made the decision to indict, based on preponderance of evidence. Even though it's tempting to assume that arrested persons are automatically guilty, in the court it's innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, the editorial did a very poor job of trying to explain that. The reader is left to believe that the editorial staff assumes that the justice system is out to railroad innocent people.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Parents will often punish both squabbling kids in an effort to not discern right or wrong. "Both of you stop it!". The kid who started the trouble smiles slyly. The wronged kid is wronged again.

EXACTLY!!! And this is why, Tonio, I tend to have problems with your views on politics. All it takes is a little history and a little surfing to see who's "right" on an issue. Opinion is all well and good but, at the end of the day, there's nothing new under the sun and history is the best teacher.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
The reader is left to believe that the editorial staff assumes that the justice system is out to railroad innocent people.

And if you read the Post editorials on a regular basis, you realize that IS what they're saying. We know this because they say it at least once a week. "Poor criminal" and not a word about the person who is dead or whose life has been irrevocably changed because of this criminal. They do it ALL the time.

Again, a little history goes a long way in shaping opinion.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
EXACTLY!!! And this is why, Tonio, I tend to have problems with your views on politics. All it takes is a little history and a little surfing to see who's "right" on an issue. Opinion is all well and good but, at the end of the day, there's nothing new under the sun and history is the best teacher.

It certainly takes a little effort to see which side is right on a particular issue. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is people deliberately confusing fact and opinion in service of their agendas. Sure, most of us can see through that. But why do people have to do that in the first place? All that does is make the political arguments personal, instead of factual.

I'd like to see people adopt the ideal in journalism (as opposed to the reality in many news outlets), where a good journalist is never supposed to let his or her opinion creep into a story.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

...The issue of the rights of the accused, vis a vis 'innocent until proven guilty' is NOT at issue in any way, shape or form when we are discussing the rights of victims and their families and friends.

My point was that the Post is being reflexively, as a matter of thought process, pro criminal and anti victim.

They treat it as though the victims are asking to be on the jury or to be the judge or prosecutor.

If some judge doesn't want me standing in his court on the day he lets my daughters rapist or murderer out of jail early or when he slaps them on the wrist, well, then we have another issue; a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. The system should be just as confident of it's work to victims faces as it should be to the defendents.

We all know, fact certain, that the number of unsolved crimes and perps set free do not match, even come close, to the numbers of real, live (at one time) victims.

There is not to little being done to protect the rights of the accused in our system.

It's the 100 man rule that the modern left holds dear and it colors their thinking.

That's an awful lot of criminals running around.

 

[Tonio]

Re: Tonio...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
My point was that the Post is being reflexively, as a matter of thought process, pro criminal and anti victim.

That's the way it comes across in the editorial, doesn't it? Like they think the victim won't have any emotional control and will attempt to sway the jury by screaming, "He killed my baby!" over and over. That's not giving the victims enough credit, and it's kind of insulting.

BTW, what is the 100-man rule?

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Sorry - I think liberals are a bunch of juvenile idiots.
Liberals make me puke.

j/k

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
But why do people have to do that in the first place?

Because they're wrong and they're counting on us morons to not realize it. They want what they want - a position of power and authority - but they're unqualified to hold such a position. So they lie and spin to cover up who they really are and what they're all about.

The media folks want what they want - #1, to sell advertising and #2, to influence public opinion. They're not going to go out there and say, "Some kid got killed by a shark the other day but, on the whole, things are good and shark attacks are rare." They're going to make a big deal about it and make it seem like sharks are going to suddenly start jumping out of the water and invade Nebraska. Sensationalism not only attracts viewers, which attracts advertisers, but it sets the "reporter" up as the "expert" and gives them the influence they crave.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Because they're wrong and they're counting on us morons to not realize it. They want what they want - a position of power and authority - but they're unqualified to hold such a position. So they lie and spin to cover up who they really are and what they're all about.

The media folks want what they want - #1, to sell advertising and #2, to influence public opinion. They're not going to go out there and say, "Some kid got killed by a shark the other day but, on the whole, things are good and shark attacks are rare." They're going to make a big deal about it and make it seem like sharks are going to suddenly start jumping out of the water and invade Nebraska. Sensationalism not only attracts viewers, which attracts advertisers, but it sets the "reporter" up as the "expert" and gives them the influence they crave.

You're right. I would ciarify that it's not so much the beat reporters, but the editors and news directors and the on-camera newsreaders who crave that influence. That sensationalism is why I hate most TV news. Did you see the article I posted in another thread about the Chandra Levy-type stories?

 

[Larry Gude]

Better 100 guilty men go free...

...than 1 innocent man go to jail.

That's the way it comes across in the editorial, doesn't it? Like they think the victim won't have any emotional control and will attempt to sway the jury by screaming, "He killed my baby!" over and over. That's not giving the victims enough credit, and it's kind of insulting.

That's my opinion, that they do come across, via a poor, faulty argument. As far as what the victims do, as long as they aren't disturbing the court, who cares??? Juries get all weepy when they think of some poor perps life or freedom coming to end because the crime is past, done is done. Can't we all move on?

That's a natural reaction, especially when it's not you. BUT it devalues the suffering of the victim, IMO. Imagine the hardship imposed on a victim of violence or even a breaking and entering.
Victims, you know this yourself, want to SEE justice done.

Things in your life are violated, perhaps broken, forever. That should place a monumental burden on the perpetrator.

As I say, we have very little lack of support for the accused.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Tonio
What I do have a problem with is people deliberately confusing fact and opinion in service of their agendas. Sure, most of us can see through that. But why do people have to do that in the first place? All that does is make the political arguments personal, instead of factual.

Also, it's that too many people are completely and utterly convinced of their own correctness. No openness to evidence that might contradict their views. That kind of egotism really puts me off.

You know what that's like for me? In almost every neighborhood I've lived in, there was a crotchety, sour man, middle-aged or older, who would corner people and trap them into an endless "conversation" about his beefs with the world (government, current or past bosses, corporations, whatever), interspersed with mean-spirited gossip about the neighbors. The man Tigger encountered in the convenience store sounds like that type of person. No point in debating anything with those type of people, even if they use racial epithets, since they won't change their minds about anything even if a meteor fell on them.

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Because they're wrong and they're counting on us morons to not realize it. They want what they want - a position of power and authority - but they're unqualified to hold such a position. So they lie and spin to cover up who they really are and what they're all about.

The media folks want what they want - #1, to sell advertising and #2, to influence public opinion. They're not going to go out there and say, "Some kid got killed by a shark the other day but, on the whole, things are good and shark attacks are rare." They're going to make a big deal about it and make it seem like sharks are going to suddenly start jumping out of the water and invade Nebraska. Sensationalism not only attracts viewers, which attracts advertisers, but it sets the "reporter" up as the "expert" and gives them the influence they crave.

I don't suppose this shark language has anything to do with somene calling me sharkbait yesterday... j/k couldn't resisit