Wednesday April 1, 2015
Jump to content
Dear Mr. Druce, I urge you to read the Constitution of the United States. It states that the members of the Senate give advice and consent in regard to certain appointments. A Senator is elected to that position to carry out designated and assigned duties but has no specific loyalties other than law and the U.S. Constitution. . Not to a state. Not to a political Party. A Senator is free to vote his/her conscience. To expect any other action is not backed by law, custom or the Constitution.
All that you wrote seems pretty much on point- sadly .We could go back to the Pillory :) but that will not solve the problems inherent in the prosecutorial system that too often is befuddled by silly rules instituted by silly politicians. The Jury system per se is a god-send in comparison to what exists in other countries.
Tom, You raise some interesting points. Some years back I read of a prison in Scandanavia (sorry, I don't recall which country) which has a fence around it but a gate that is left open most times. I do not recall if the prisoners were felons, minor offenders, or a mix. No violent offenders were there. The inmates lived in on or two person rooms. They worked in an on-site furniture factory and were paid a modest wage, of which one-half was sent to their family. The furniture was sold on the open market at what was deemed to be a fair market price. The prisoners were allowed weekend leave. If the inmate misbehaved, went AWOL, did not keep the proper hours for leave, he was transferred to a mainstream prison. This facility had very, very few AWOLS and very few problems. he inmates realized what a deal that they had. The prison made a profit on the furniture and the funds were used to offset the cost of prison overhead. I present the overview of another system in which the convict is treated as a valuable but errant person who has the means to reform himself. And what do we do .... ?
Our penal system works well - especially if our goal is to create more and better criminals.
Tom, I support removing the various philosophical reasons for opting out of vaccinations if the children want to enroll in public schools. It is a question of what is best for the general welfare. We know about "herd immunity" and we can see what happens when people are not immunized to diseases. However, I do have respect for individual rights when it does not imperil the general welfare. At this point in time the numbers of students who attend private schools or are home schooled are not at the "tipping point" of endangering the general welfare but that may soon change. As to immigrants: they may well import serious diseases and the question is what can we do about it. I suggest that those who want Green Cards be forced to take immunizations, possibly at public expense. The illegals???
Mr. Eby, Perhaps there are a few people who still hold a lantern and look for the truth. Your question might have several origens. One might be that you believe what you have read/heard about Benghazi. Another might be that you think questioning the politicos is a waste of time. Another might be that you are interested in the thinking of Mr. Garrett. In any case, your question is interesting.
Tom, It appears to me that there exists an attitude, ethic or morality that values political power/influence and personal power more than truth. On a wider scale "adjustable ethics" has replaced Judeo-Christian ethics. Sad it is, but those folks who fall into that category of people seem to reject the concept(s) involved in traditional American values in favor of situational values.
In its simplicity it is truly eloquent and thought provoking. The sentence(s) contain so very much of what I believe to be true. Additionally, I will ask the question : Why can Liberals not understand ?
Tom, What is that old saying about disagreeing without being disagreeable? I think that we have hashed the topic enough for the time being.
Tom, Schopenhauer was and is interesting. Like all philosophers, he presents postulates or points of view that are both applauded and condemned. For purposes of our discussion, his logic is useful. However, I was not attempting to be super-logical but was attempting to use succinct and rather simple hypotheticals. I am sorry if the outcomes were to lead you to the belief that I think that difficult moral issues usually have simple solutions. They usually do not.
An answer to the question that you posed in your last post, I do not agree that we can beat terrorists without doing things that even we might find repulsive. Historically I will mention the bombing of Hamburg where thousands of civilians were consumed by fire. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in the deaths of many thousands of civilians. The A-Bombs. Etc. I do not believe that these and many other horrors were a result of abandoning our principles forever. Rather, I think that some principles of some people were temporarily changed by circumstances or lack of will or an alteration to a different principle that was thought to be higher. As an aside, some of my ancestors came to this land because they were Quakers. One G+ Uncle was removed from the church because he fought in the Revolutionary War, which was against the church philosophy. I do not condemn those, like the Quakers, who stick to a strict set of beliefs that do not agree with mine. Simply, I just want to make sure that I know why I believe as I do and find it morally palatable.
Last login: Sunday, March 29, 2015