Incumbent Munchkin Patty McHenry in the NC-10 has little cash on hand, widespread pockets of horror at his very being in his own district, and two Republican primary rivals on the May 4th ballot. If he had one of those two challengers, he might be in trouble, since all the disaffection for McHenry could coalesce around one opponent. But two? Fuggetaboutit!
One of those two challengers has self-financed to the tune of $485,000. The other one, a mere $250,000.
But that's a lot of combined scratch to throw down a rathole. And neither challenger has shown any willingness to attack McHenry or even to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and the incumbent. (Oh, one of the two challengers suggests that McHenry is too liberal -- I'm not making this up -- without being specific about that.)
So far, that primary in the NC-10 is a colossal waste of time and a massive waste of money.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Futility = A Republican Primary in the NC-10
Labels:
Patrick McHenry,
Scott Keadle,
Vance Patterson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
"Obama said in a CBS television interview that he has not ruled out holding the trial in New York federal court, but he is taking into account the concerns of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York Police Department."
Notice that the concerns of the American people do not hold a place of importance on his spoken list.
Mike D. Which American people? Is he supposed to send out a survey to everyone in Boone, for instance? Why should the opinions of someone in East Podunk be more influential than the opinions of the people who would be most directly affected? Aren't you picking at nits here?
curious that the decider had his show trials for these sort of accused in regular courts but the obama is held to a different measure.
Bridle,
Polling in Boone would not reflect the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States of America. Boone is so fringe, in terms of what is considered the political middle, that Watauga County was one of only a few enclaves nationwide where Dennis Kucinich actually won the Democratic primary in the 2004 election. The other communities where he won represent a short-list of the most leftist small college towns in the nation, where professors at coffee shops speak the ideology of the town.
I speak of the will of the people.
Craig,
How about death by firing squad, with no trial? There is no need for a trial when the individual is not an American citizen, was openly engaged in an act of war against my country, and proudly proclaims his guilt.
One bullet is all that is needed, and it costs less than a dollar.
You still addicted to George Bush, eh Craig? At what point will you stop re-living the past, looking for enemies?
No need for a trial? 1,000 years of carefully constructed system of justice can be ditched because you are afraid?
Mike, you speak of the people of the United States, who elected Barac Obama and his clearly stated liberal agenda? He made no secret of his ideas about returning justice and the rule of law to this country. What is the advantage of denying a fair trial to any human being? It just turns this country into another banana republic. Ask the people of Chili, or Argentina how that works out in the long run.
so death by firing squad is ok when we do it because we decide we must but when others do it they are commies or whatever.
good to see the hypocricy stated out in the open.
Mike: Do you not think that Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Police Department can SPEAK FOR the citizens most directly affected by a trial? They were elected or hired to do just that. I agree with Bridle. You just did pick at a nit.
And I don't read Craig holding any great love for Bush.
And name the coffeehouse so I can hear professors speak "the ideology of a town." Wow! Unelected officials?
Mike D: You've "jumped the shark!" Fonzie would be proud of you!
<span>"so death by firing squad is ok when we do it because we decide we must" - Craig</span>
Who said anything about deciding we must? That's your sociopathic mind, Craig, creating an imperative, because your sanity relies, moment to moment, on creating imperatives.
I say give him death by firing squad, not because it is what we must do, not because we are compelled to follow the directive of a particular moral imperative, but because it is all the parasitic, subhuman, bastard slime deserves. He should not get an ounce more of our good will than he deserves.
<span>"What is the advantage of denying a fair trial to any human being?" - Bridle</span>
Through the logic implied by your rhetorical question, one could say that any member of al'Qaeda killed by a bullet or a drone-fired missile was denied justice by The Great Satan America.
My suggestion has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with pest control. Either we are at war or we are not. Either al'Qaeda is your enemy or they are not.
All other perspectives change meaning based on the answer to this fundamental question:
Is al'Qaeda your enemy?
So Mike D. You appoint yourself judge, and jury and executioner? As far as you are concerned, you know all you need to know about his case? Doesn't matter if he is schizophrenic, bipolar, retarded, or if the people who set him up with the bombs are holding his family hostage. You have all the information you need from your cable news network (fair and balanced) and there is no point in proceeding with our justice system. Cause they never make a mistake. And that fair trial stuff only applies to people like you.
You never did say what the advantage of denying a fair trial is. I will tell you why it is a terrible idea.
1. Because if they can deny basic human rights to anyone, even your enemy, the precedent is there to be used against you. (See Thomas Paine)
2) America used to be known for its freedom and ideals, and we attracted the best kind of immigrants who desired to work and create a life for their children. Our soldiers in WW1 and WW2 fought knowing they were upholding a noble ideal of freedom and justice for all. Because the Bush regime flouted our basic standards (and the constitution) our reputation is tattered in the world and at home. A country that murders and tortures is not worth fighting for.
3. The rule of law is what separates us from a tribe of beasts. It's the right and ethical thing to do.
All people who murder are evil, no matter what mafia they belong to. All deserve justice. Our Constitution acknowledges that all people have basic human rights, whether they are citizens or not.
Bridle,
I do not have cable TV. I hardly ever watch TV, especially not cable news, so I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that if I hold an opinion that differs from yours, it must be because someone who lies has tampered with my mind? Was "Celebrate Diversity" only important as a tool to wrest power away from the neo-conservatives, or was it an honest declaration of the understanding that people differ from each other, and that's ok?
I will answer your question. Let's see if you will answer mine.
You ask "<span><span>What is the advantage of denying a fair trial to any human being?</span></span><span>" I guess you are asking me to tell you that it's cheaper, more expedient, less of a hassle to New Yorkers, but that is someone else's opinion, not mine. My opinion is that "advantage" has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that the concept of 'desert' has been removed</span><span> from the American justice system. The concept of punishment has been rendered an unacceptable component of justice, to be replaced only with rehabilitation. So you understand, I hope, why I cannot properly answer your question in the form it is asked, as I don't believe "advantage" should be the overriding consideration, where justice is concerned. Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be executed by a firing squad, without fanfare, not because it is expedient, not because it will heal his psychosis, but because it is exactly what he deserves.</span>
Now, to my question...<span> Either al'Qaeda is your enemy or they are not:</span>
<span> </span><span>Is al'Qaeda your enemy?</span><span> </span>
Mike, What I hear you say is that your mind is made up from the information you got (from where, the newspapers?) and that you are willing to decide that another human being's life should be ended. That is an old testament, tribal, mindset. An eye for an eye, and vengeance equals justice. That is the kind of law that rules in Afghanistan, and Somalia, and other backwards, barbaric, primitive states.
A civilized, decent society has a system of justice in place to determine and deal with crimes. (Yes, this was a crime, no we are not at war with Yemen). That system must apply to everyone or it is not justice, by definition.
Would it matter to you if the underpants bomber was schizophrenic? We do know that his family had been very concerned about his mental state.
Al Qaeda is an abstraction - a loose knit confederation of religious fanatics. I despise the religious beliefs that drive their crimes, but I would not condone the murder of a person simply because he or she holds an abhorrent belief.
So, when American forces bomb an al'Qaeda training camp in Pakistan, have we denied justice to those killed, or have we administered it?
In your opinion, is warfare the proper response to anything at all?
<span>I do not agree that "An eye for an eye" and "vengeance equals justice" have anything to do with one another, and the concept of 'desert' as an essential component of traditional American justice, the central pillar of my response, has been completely ignored.</span>
This brings up an interesting question. You speak of one out of 282 laws from the Code of Hammurabi, and it is the one that is most frequently referenced, so much so that quite a few local residents parade, in their gasoline burning vehicles, illogical bumper stickers which read "An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind". What is it about this particular legal concept which draws so much ire? I'm really curious, and you seem more willing to discuss your beliefs philosophically than most on this site. Would you please indulge my curiosity?
Thanks.
War is the most expensive, brutal, horrible, and wicked endeavor that humans have invented. Anyone who starts a war is evil. Sometimes, in pure self-defense we have no choice but to engage in war, but it always has a dreadful cost. When we (or anyone) drops bombs, we take the chance of killing the innocent, babies, women, pregnant women, or anyone else who might be in the path of the bomb. If we accidentally kill children along with the Al Qaeda fighters, have we administered justice?
<span>You ask why I hate the idea of an eye for an eye? Because it creates societies that waste all their energy wreaking vengeance. It creates societies constantly engaged in fighting. Think Hatfields and McCoys, Mafia, The Mountain People (Colin Turnbull). </span><span>I myself don't care about vengeance. I care about results. Kangaroo courts, torture, extralegal killings will create a worse world for us in the long run. </span>
<span>"There never was a good war, or a bad peace". Benjamin Franklin</span>
"The concept of punishment has been rendered an unacceptable component of justice, to be replaced only with rehabilitation." - Mike D.
That is so untrue. The "Sneaker Bomber" is now imprisoned in Colorado Saddam Huessein was tried and hung. How is that not punishment?
BikerBard,
I would refer you to an excellent essay I found, written by a world famous novelist/essayist whom every person who visits this site knows, an essay which agrees rather closely with my views on crime and punishment (don't worry, it's not Dostoevsky), but states them more thoroughly than I ever could, but you have told me, in no uncertain terms, that you place no value on information I link, and you have told me, outright, that you will not review any link I post, so what's the point?
Bridle,
I think I understand our point of departure now.
Vengeance = Payback
Desert = Just Reward or Punishment
We are looking at this from entirely different perspectives. To me, shooting KSM would not have anything to do with payback. It would have to do with just punishment.
If you would like to read an interesting essay on the subject, I recommend
Bridle,
I think I understand our point of departure now.
Vengeance = Payback
Desert = Just Reward or Punishment
We are looking at this from entirely different perspectives. To me, shooting KSM would not have anything to do with payback. It would have to do with just punishment.
If you would like to read an interesting essay on the subject, I recommend reading The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, by C.S. Lewis:
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
That was strange. Sorry for the double paste. Is there a way to review one's post before submitting it with J.W.'s new comment service?
Mike: You have conveniently disregarded the citation I have made about the punishment of terrorists, which negates your argument. What about Richard Reid inprisoned Is that not punishment, or is it really rehabilitationl??
PS: He awaits Allah to release him. Long wait, I think.
BikerBard,
If you visit the link to C.S. Lewis' essay from 1953, I think you will understand my perspective a bit more clearly. Although I do not expect that you will agree with it, at least your question will be answered.
Of course, that would require voluntarily subjecting yourself to material that I have recommended, and I do not envision that happening, so this conversation isn't really likely to progress from this point.
But what the hey, there's a first time for everything. Here's hoping...
Mike - I read your link. I used to like CS Lewis. But this essay is bunch of balderdash. His thesis is - punishment or retribution is actually more humane than the humanitarian philosophy of rehabilitation or prevention. He sounds like the executioner who justifies burning heretics alive in order to save their souls. Lewis argues that the "humanitarian" philosophy dehumanizes people, removes sentencing from the hands of jurists, and makes it OK to punish innocent people. What a load of unsupported hooey. And this statement " For if crime and disease are to be regarded as the same thing, it follows that any state of mind which our masters choose to call ‘disease’ can be treated as a crime and compulsorily cured." Talk about conflating two different concepts! No one is saying that crime and disease are the same. He is setting up a bunch of straw men that are not remotely relevant to the issue."If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a gumboil or a club foot?" People with physical deformities or diseases don't need to be pardoned, or punished, because they haven't impinged on other people's rights. That is what a crime is. Sometimes diseases do cause people to commit crimes. Sometimes poverty causes people to commit crimes. Doesn't it make sense to focus on curing the disease and alleviating poverty?
Lewis's problem is that he believes crime and sin are the same. They are not. Determination of sin has no place in our criminal justice system. Society's job is to maintain domestic tranquility. We decide what constitutes a crime, we give people a fair trial, and we try to figure out how to deal with them in a way that makes society as safe as possible. Reducing crime is much much better and cheaper than prosecuting it.
By the way, one of Lewis's arguments against the humanitarian theory is that "The Humanitarian theory, then, removes sentences from the hands of jurists." Aren't you the one who is arguing that the underpants bomber doesn't deserve a trial by jury?
Mike: I also read your link, so don't put words into my mouth again. Then I did some further reading.
How about this: The final realization, of course, is that the theories must be combined. The Retributive Theory must be the underlying foundation, justifying whether punishment (or "treatment") may be dished out at all, and setting the precise limits on its severity.
But after that (and only after that) the Humanitarian Theory should come into to play to make the punishment meaningful and useful for as many people as possible, including the criminal.
One theory doesn't have to be chosen over the other.
See: It's both a candy mint and a breath mint.
BB, you are right of course. Too many times we create false dichotomies. Most complex issues are not solvable by looking at them in black and white terms. It's all about balance.
biker; mike dicker will no more stop putting words into someones mouth than a lepard will change its spots.
i do enjoy your optimism though. always have.
BikerBard,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Was that a summation of your research, or was it an actual quote from another source? I would like to read the rest of it, if it is a quote. It sounds like my kind of philosophical writing. And thank you for reading my link. I'll post more on the subject in my response to Bridle.
Now, about that Jerry Doyle Show... ;)
Haha... Just kidding!!!!
Bridle,
My suggestion was not intended to apply to the underwear bomber (or "Fruit of the Boom!", as I call him). I was speaking of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And in this particular instance, you are correct that I am taking the word of a possibly dishonest media source when I say that he proudly declared his guilt. I do not know for sure that he claimed responsibility for the airplane attack in lower Manhattan. I don't remember where I heard that, but it was likely from a mainstream media source. I apologize.
That said, if it is true, do we regularly award jury trials to individuals who plead guilty to charges? Perhaps Shyster can answer that?
Now, as to the Retributive vs. Humanitarian/Therapeutic theories of punishment, I very much agree with the most recent posts by BikerBard and yourself. I linked the C.S. Lewis essay because it seemed to me that previous posts were claiming that any application of the Retributive theory constitutes barbarism, and I do not agree with that at all. As you and BikerBard suggested, a union of the two philosophies is clearly, in my opinion as well, the best justice modern society has to offer, imperfect though it may be.
Most philosophers are a bit crazy, and although their works ought to be considered, and perhaps included in our world view, to follow only one thinker, or one philosophy, makes one a bit crazy in my humble opinion. All you have to do to see it in action is post some thread on Objectivism, and the nutty Rand-bots flow from the nether to lecture us all on the overriding importance of the individual.
Craig,
Would you please go make us some chips and dip or something?
Mike, One of the many many problems with the use of torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques" which is a tortured term for torture) is that all evidence gained thereby is invalidated. The man was waterboarded how many times? And let's not even try to imagine what else was done to him. You and I both would have confessed to anything had we been in that situation. The thought that people in my country, in my employ, did such things in my name, makes me extremely angry. It brings out the desire for some retributive justice, in fact.
Neither you nor I know if this man was guilty of anything, and at this point, we never will.
I agree with you about philosophy. We all ought to engage in it a little bit, but too much can rot the brain.
Bridle,
I love how far away from a state primary our conversation has ranged.
I don't know if KSM's confession was before or after waterboarding. It's a good point.
Do you expect that Obama is going to succeed in getting him a domestic jury trial?
Mike D.:
My quote should have been in quotations. My bad. Here is the link for the discussion I read.
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/37743-humanitarian-theory-punishment.html
Mike D.
P.S.: Instead of Jerry Doyle, how about an hour of recorded nails, scraping on a blackboard?
It will have the same effect.
BikerBard,
Twisted Sister was an acceptable deal, but I don't think I could handle an hour of nails on a blackboard.... I cringe just thinking about it. >:o >:o >:o
Craig,
That dip ready yet? I sho am hungry!
here we have a head waiter at the local hojos, miked, asking for chips.
that order should go to the pantry and not to the chef.
I prefer the nails.
Post a Comment