New Developments II

[Damien]

Sabin does my heart good to read your reaction to the Cherish Life Circle, and your family's take on legalized murder. (I can even forgive you for liking Amy Adams in Junebug.)

FG, I would hope that anyone taking a postion on any social issue would feel he or she is on the better side. AndI think your condescension was utterly uncalled for.

And one can be againstthe death penalty AND give money to homeless folks -- it's not an either/or proposition.

[Sonic Youth]

I actually mentioned her. Very briefly. I wrote "And Young?" Should've probably followed that up with more, but yes I did read that in your post.

(NOTE: I wrote that post immediately after reading that it wasn't a banner, but a T-shirt. I don't know what kind of misinformation was being leaked but there's a big difference obviously. My problem is that security should have been briefed as to what can or can't be allowed in. She made it through, which -- I realize -- should not have happened. Personally, I find it obnoxious that a body can wear a shirt in support of the war and another cannot wear one against, but it's the State of the Union and I understand. But then she was arrested for that and charged. That's two lapses in protocol, right? Not even counting what happened to Rep. Young's wife.)

Sabin, I'm sorry. I guess I was reading haphazardly.

Actually, it was four lapses of protocol because Sheehan went through TWO security checkpoints, and I assume the rep's wife did too.

I don't see it as a dress code violation at all. If they banned all T-shirts with writing on them, then fine. But if they only forbid T-shirts with a political message on it, then it's curtailing free speech.

No, Sabin, there was no tone of righteousness to your post. Nor was there a tone of uncalled-for condescension, but you have admirable tolerance for putting up with it when it's directed at you.

[filmgabber]

We'll have to agree to disagree Sabin. To an extent, I respect where you're coming from. You represent the other side, but I don't think you represent it well. I'm not convinced you've given it complete thought. I think you're still more invested in making cupcakes with other do-gooders and feel-gooders, patting yourselves on the back for recruiting the family tree and other tag alongs, into something that deserves very sensitive consideration.

In closing, I'll say this. At least a murderer gets his/her choice of a last meal, a last visit and blessing from desired clergy, a last will and testament, and a final visit from one family member (some states may allow additional visitors).

Wouldn't it be nice to ask a victim before they're about to be stabbed multiple times, let's say a pregnant woman, if she'd like steak and whipped potatoes for her final meal? Well, by your standards and now, mom's and pop's standards in good old Southwestern US of A, her murderer can enjoy that last dinner for her. Pat yourselves on the back for that, and throw in some chocolate mousse while you're at it.

Oh well, it has been interesting to hear a different viewpoint on this subject.

[Sabin]

Sorry I opened up a whole thing here, especially because on any given day I really understand your point...

You close by saying: "You think it's unethical to fry someone in a chair? Try, ice picking them more than twenty times and not giving them a proper burial, let alone an opportunity to say goodbye to their family. You want to give someone a chance to live that didn't extend that chance to someone else? Then again, for you it's back to class and making films, eh?"

Mostly it's just back to class, but I guess anybody who goes for a liberal arts degree and expresses some form of opinion has this kind of thing coming, right?

You're right. Picking somebody apart with an ice pick is pretty unethical, far more so than executing them. So much more so that I don't think it's entirely fair that they know exactly when their end is coming when their victims didn't, that they get every form of closure the state can provide them (their victims didn't get a last meal or people praying for them or slippers of a humane death -- and yes, I do consider it as humane a death as we can provide, which is far more than they deserve). It's not fair; and I know that life certainly isn't fair, but the idea of them being stabbed in prison sits a lot better with me than letting them know that they are too dangerous to be allowed to live. Throw 'em away, let 'em rot, get stabbed, raped, sick, dead, or redeemed by their newfound faith in God...and have to live with it.

What about lil' Timmy McVeigh? He was sentenced to death, but it just wasn't moving along fast enough for the guy so he petitioned that it be expedited. So...we just kinda complied. Why does Timothy McVeigh get what he wants? On any level? I'm not shedding any tears for him and I'm perfectly fine with him being wiped off the face of the planet, but I wish he was suffering for what he did.

I'm not being self-righteous. I can go to sleep every night just fine knowing that criminals are put to death, but I still don't think it's right. Sure, let's take care of the African children first if that's what it comes down to



Edited By Sabin on 1138901712

[Cinephile101]

I just wanted to add that it's significantly more expensive to execute someone than to keep him or her in prison for life.

[OscarGuy]

Life in prison or death? Filmgabber, you make it sound like there's no difference. The death penalty isn't a sudden punishment, most who are on death row are there for many years before being executed. So, those who are self-righteous enough to say that the death penalty is a welcome substitute from state-sponsored living for inmates don't realizes that it's happening either which way. If they are going to support the death penalty, it should be within weeks, not years, of their incarceration and conviction.

I personally favor the island approach. Find an island, stick them all on the island and let them kill or be killed. The child murderers and molesters will be destroyed more quickly for they are used to smaller prey. Besides, most child molesters get their just deserts in prison because inmates tend to KILL them (just look at Jeffrey Dahmer).

[filmgabber]

but seriously: do we really have to kill people?


I don't know about your African children analogy. I, uh, think we should do something about that too, but I still think we don't have to put people to death. I'm a multi-tasker, is what I'm saying.

Certain people have committed crimes beyond our wildest imagination. There simply isn't a punishment that would fit their gruesome crimes. I'm not going to weigh daily sandwiches, milk, reading material, workable toilet, library and a roof atop someone's head over an unfortunate death sentence for um...let's say, the Green River Killer.

Here's a person who intentionally sought out his victims, lured them into his vehicle with a business proposition and brutally raped them, buried them and hid that information for years while he punched in and out of work, went grocery shopping, bar crawling - basically having the same freedoms you and I enjoy, but living as a criminal. It wasn't UNTIL he got caught, and UNTIL he offered a plea via his defense that he gave the authorities and the victim's families the details about their grisley murders.

For years, these families wondered not only who killed their daughters, sisters and even mothers, they also never knew what their final moments were. True, maybe these women - street walkers as they're called - would never have been my mom or sister or your mom and sister - you and I come from privileged homes and lives in comparison - but these women mattered to someone.

One person destroyed the lives of dozens of families. Did you, by chance, tune in to the roll call of victims on the morning the Green River Killer was convicted, or plead guilty to his crimes? Had he not been caught, not been granted a plea (for the sake of knowing the exact locations where he spilled these bodies), would he have continued to live his life with the freedoms that you and I have, able to kill someone else and go to work the next morning, probably stopping for a sausage McGriddle on the way in?

And you want to pay for this f ucker's meals everyday? You want to give him a roof to sleep under rather than offer it to a homeless person under your nearest bridge, just because you really don't think no one should be killed? Well Mr. Chicago film student, I ask that you pick up a phone and call one of the victims' family members of the Green River Killer, or BTK Killer, or Charles Manson for that matter, and tell them what's on this week's menu at the prison. Maybe it's tater tots. You helped pay for it, you champion it, so tell them what their daughter's, son's, or mother's killer is eating and reading this week.

I'm all for putting criminals behind bars, if only each criminal committed the same level of crime it would be that simple to lock them all up. But for criminals who've chosen, unless by severe professionally diagnosed mental illness, to commit hanus crimes - I say they merit an equally disturbing, most unfortunate and most severe punishment - and sunshine, to me that isn't having clean clothes and eating twice daily and having a pillow to sleep on.

You think it's unethical to fry someone in a chair? Try, ice picking them more than twenty times and not giving them a proper burial, let alone an opportunity to say goodbye to their family. You want to give someone a chance to live that didn't extend that chance to someone else? Then again, for you it's back to class and making films, eh?



Edited By filmgabber on 1138870383

[Sabin]

I actually mentioned her. Very briefly. I wrote "And Young?" Should've probably followed that up with more, but yes I did read that in your post.

(NOTE: I wrote that post immediately after reading that it wasn't a banner, but a T-shirt. I don't know what kind of misinformation was being leaked but there's a big difference obviously. My problem is that security should have been briefed as to what can or can't be allowed in. She made it through, which -- I realize -- should not have happened. Personally, I find it obnoxious that a body can wear a shirt in support of the war and another cannot wear one against, but it's the State of the Union and I understand. But then she was arrested for that and charged. That's two lapses in protocol, right? Not even counting what happened to Rep. Young's wife.)


Was there a tone of righteousness to my message? Let me make this clear: I want the person who kills me ass-raped for the rest of their life. I don't want a flick of the switch at the end of a long journey to the chair, ripe with opportunities for spiritual redemption knowing his/her end is coming. I'm an angry dude and I still want certain people dead (wanting isn't getting), but seriously: do we really have to kill people? Do I want to pay for her food, water, and shelter? No. Do I want a weepy end with years and years of waiting, eventually finding God, a lengthy appeal process, and a solemn march to the chair with a candle light vigil? Just remove them from society and keep them in squalor. I'm certainly far from a "wonderful American" (although I do have an Aunt Barb -- seriously), most specifically insofar as I have no idea how much it costs to keep these people alive, but I do know that we pay taxes for dumber reasons.

I went to Catholic high school and almost every day I endured this kind of glib, self-righteous "Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong" slogan-ization (it's a word, or it should be), almost to the point where I was for the death penalty out of sheer opposition. Really, you can think of many responses to that kind of overly glib statement -- because it's practical, because it's fitting, etc. But really we do it because it's easier and I think we should be better than that. I don't think we as a nation are on any level, but until it's up for a vote -- and I don't see that coming any time soon -- this is really the only way I can put my beliefs into effect.

I don't know about your African children analogy. I, uh, think we should do something about that too, but I still think we don't have to put people to death. I'm a multi-tasker, is what I'm saying.



Edited By Sabin on 1138861811

[OscarGuy]

It's probably a dress code violation of some sort...you can get written up in the work place if you're not in dress code and if it happens too often, you can be fired. So, ejecting someone from the building is perfectly reasonable. Arresting is another story.

[Sonic Youth]

I just turned on MSNBC while I read this.

Horse$hit. Utter, utter horse$hit.

I can understand somebody having their banner taken away from them; I don't think it's right, but I understand it. But this is pathetic. There's no reason why this woman should not be allowed to wear a T-shirt that only mentions the number of dead in a war that we are currently fighting. And Young? We can't confront our President, question him, ELECT him, or wear any form of expression denouncing or supporting him without some form of preemptive measure to protect the American people? I mean, I know the answer is no, but it's a ####ing T-shirt!

Yeah, but Sabin, if you read the article I posted, they also ejected a woman who wore a PRO-war shirt - a representative's wife, no less. Sounds like they were just following a rule. An idiotic rule.

Were there no sloganeering T-shirt rule, though, I'm sure they would have found some other reason to eject Sheehan.

[filmgabber]

The Cherish Life Circle...I'm strongly considering being a part of that. I'm proud to say that now every member of my household (whom I don't live with, but thankfully share many of the same values) are against capital punishment. I don't want somebody losing their life because A) that's not our job, and B) I don't want anybody who kills me to get off that easy. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm forwarding that to my family.

So, you'd rather feed and quench the thirst of criminals? A woman drowns her five children in a tub, one by one, and you'd rather chip in your tax dollars to make sure she gets a decent meal each day? Interesting.

It's not so much that I'm for capital punishment, though if asked to vote for or against it I'd be pro, but part of the problem with our society is that we're skewed in our sense of compassion. We walk by the homeless and drop nothing in their cups or hats, yet we want to organize workshops and social groups to approach an alternative punishment to the death penalty.

1 in 5 children in Africa dies before they complete school, if they were even privileged to receive an education in the first place, and we want to find some way - some way to ethically punish a person who literally sliced another human's life away.

Sitting around, having cookies and tea with people who share the same values is an easy thing to do. It's the easiest way to find some way to rid this country, and this world of violence. "Let's sign up everyone who doesn't want people to be lethally injected, hung or electrocuted!" Sounds like a simple thing to agree to and sign up for.

But the fact is...criminals exist. They do wrong. They make decisions that separate themselves from humanity. That to me doesn't warrant being kept alive with my money, not when other people in this country and world are in a position of dire need and not pulling guns on their fellow man, or drowning their own children because life was just too darn hard in suburbia.

I don't want to debate. But, there's this "I'm a wonderful American" tone to your message for recruiting mom, dad, cousin Earl and Aunt Barb to believe what you believe. Well, yippee to you. We obviously march in a different band - but I hope you, or anyone, who is against the death penalty doesn't make themselves feel like they're on the better side. With this controversial subject, there really isn't one.

[Sabin]

I just turned on MSNBC while I read this.

Horse$hit. Utter, utter horse$hit.

I can understand somebody having their banner taken away from them; I don't think it's right, but I understand it. But this is pathetic. There's no reason why this woman should not be allowed to wear a T-shirt that only mentions the number of dead in a war that we are currently fighting. And Young? We can't confront our President, question him, ELECT him, or wear any form of expression denouncing or supporting him without some form of preemptive measure to protect the American people? I mean, I know the answer is no, but it's a ####ing T-shirt!

(NOTE: I don't know what FOX will say about Sheehan, but I do know that I watched the SoU on FOX -- sue me -- and they made sure to get a shot of John Kerry looking at his shoes, resembling a sleeping man. Give the guy a break, it's been a bad enough week already.)

Re: Damien...

Because I want to know. I want to hear what he says. I hate him, have voted against him twice, and will risk imprisonment if it means I get a clear shot at his head with a tomato. But as irrelevent as watching the least articulate president ever deliver a speech for an hour is, I'll listen to his State of the Union if I possibly can. I don't want to not know what he says -- in this case, the double negative is appropriate. I certainly don't want to know, but if I can then I can't not. Somewhere my sixth grade grammar teacher's head is spinning.

The Cherish Life Circle...I'm strongly considering being a part of that. I'm proud to say that now every member of my household (whom I don't live with, but thankfully share many of the same values) are against capital punishment. I don't want somebody losing their life because A) that's not our job, and B) I don't want anybody who kills me to get off that easy. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm forwarding that to my family.



Edited By Sabin on 1138845630

[Sonic Youth]

The charges have been dropped and the police have apologized. Will Fox report this?

Check out the other woman who was arrested, a representative's wife who wore a "support the troops" t-shirt. Jeez, some blunder this was.

Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan

Feb 1, 6:51 PM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and "share the department's plans for avoiding this in the future."

"A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan," Gainer said.

For his part, Bill Young said he was not necessarily satisfied.

"My wife was humiliated," he told reporters. He suggested that "sensitivity training" may be in order for Capitol Police.

A foreign-born American citizen who was the guest of Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., also was taken by police from the gallery just above the House floor, Hastings said Wednesday.

The congressman met with Gainer and said he also requested a meeting with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., about the incident.

"I'd like to find out more information," Hastings said in an interview, identifying the man only as being from Broward County in Florida. "He is a constituent of mine. I invited him proudly."

Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Capitol Police charged her with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia's code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds, a law enforcement official said. She was released from custody and flew home Wednesday to Los Angeles.

Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom."

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day.

However, State of the Union guests don't receive any guidelines, Hanley said. "You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire," she said.

[Damien]

Looking in the paper today at a picture of the thing that made a nationally-televised speech last night, I'm reminded of how many people it killed while governor of Texas.

Anyone else who is opposed to the death penalty might be interested in the Cherish Life Circle, an anti-government murder group. The Circle issues a card -- much like a organ-donor card -- that states that if you are murdered you adamently don't want your killer murdered:

“I hereby declare that should I die as a result of violent crime, I request that the person or person found guilty for my killing not be subject to, or put in jeopardy of the death penalty under any circumstances, no matter how heinous their crime, or how much I have suffered.”


The website is
http://www.deathrowspeaks.info/information/cherishlifecircle.html

[Sonic Youth]

To give Bush credit where credit's due, I think that his first half hour was pretty strong. Not illuminating by any means, but really not bad. From then on, it's been a spiral into a world I can only describe as "Bush Talking." Bullet points loosely connected by cliche, stammerings, and the same monotonous, condescending tone -- at best. At worst -- it's pretty repugnant stuff: smug, rambling, and impersonal.

Unfortunately, Sabin, I saw very little of that this time around. I think the speech was disappointing in that he looked like he understood what he was saying. No major mistakes or anything. He didn't make a fool of himself. He understood the meanings of the words, and had a concept of what a paragraph was. He was actually 'aight. But I admit I was doing several things at once and wasn't paying much attention. And I missed the best part, when the Democrats stood up and applauded because Social Security couldn't go through.

Very heartfelt tribute to Coretta Scott King :sarcasm:. If her husband were still alive, Bush would be spying on him, too.

My favorite part of the speech is always the laundry list of promises that often don't come through. Is everyone looking forward to their AIDS medication? What, is Bush now socializing medicine?

Funny how he barely mentioned his health accounts program, which only started last month and is already seen as a failure. Funny how he said he would hire and train 70,000 teachers but forgot to mention that he's gutting the education budget.