Saturday, August 13, 2005
Alicia Reece's Residency Questioned
Something very interesting is brewing for the Reece Family. Now, if it only wasn't Nate bringing this up, it might have a lot more credibility and respectability behind it. I am not going to let a good scandal go un-noticed though, so I shall be watching how this turns out. If people remember, Damon Lynch went though something similar in 2003 when he ran the first time for City Council.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Philosophical/legal question
Over the past week the Enquirer has published two stories about males found guilty of attempted murder: Jesse Gandy and Benjamin White (I can't find the Enquirer link on the White case so I pulled the Post's). I realize they're both juveniles, but I'm not really focusing on the particulars of the case.
The greater question I've always had is, why do people get lighter sentences for attempted murder than for murder? The intent is the same; you're trying to end another person's life. That's why they call it attempted murder. Why should you get a lighter sentence because you didn't 'succeed' at it? Is there a belief that you have less of a chance of committing another crime if you didn't actually kill the person? Maybe the argument is facetious or naive, but I would really like to understand from a legal or other perspective why this is.
I'm sure some people will say, 'that's like comparing shoplifting with robbing a bank of millions'. I would say that the analogy above is more comparable to a singular murder to multiple murders. In the end the intent is still the same, you're just comparing volumes.
UPDATE: Whoops, forgot to sign the post. That happens when you blog with 4 hours sleep.
Adam
Reality Bytes
The greater question I've always had is, why do people get lighter sentences for attempted murder than for murder? The intent is the same; you're trying to end another person's life. That's why they call it attempted murder. Why should you get a lighter sentence because you didn't 'succeed' at it? Is there a belief that you have less of a chance of committing another crime if you didn't actually kill the person? Maybe the argument is facetious or naive, but I would really like to understand from a legal or other perspective why this is.
I'm sure some people will say, 'that's like comparing shoplifting with robbing a bank of millions'. I would say that the analogy above is more comparable to a singular murder to multiple murders. In the end the intent is still the same, you're just comparing volumes.
UPDATE: Whoops, forgot to sign the post. That happens when you blog with 4 hours sleep.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Bengals start preseason tonight
Hear that Bengal growlin'
Mean and angaree
Here he comes a prowlin'
Lean and hungaree
An offensive brute
Run pass or boot
And defensively he's rough, tough
Cincinnati Bengals
That's the team we're gonna cheer to victory
Touchdown Bengals
Get some points up on that board
And win a game for Cincinnati
Update: see above
Adam
Reality Bytes
Mean and angaree
Here he comes a prowlin'
Lean and hungaree
An offensive brute
Run pass or boot
And defensively he's rough, tough
Cincinnati Bengals
That's the team we're gonna cheer to victory
Touchdown Bengals
Get some points up on that board
And win a game for Cincinnati
Update: see above
Adam
Reality Bytes
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Catastrophic CAFTA bamboozle
It looks like Bob Taft has some competition for biggest buffoon politician in Ohio. Check out this story from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on 14th district Rep. Steve LaTourette. It's paginated, but trust me, it's worth reading. The rep changed his vote from no to yes on CAFTA, under rationale that basically either makes him look like an idiot or a liar. They report, you decide.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Adam
Reality Bytes
For those of you that don't like Bronson commentaries...
I don't have much time to comment on the Bronson column today, but I'll go out on a limb and say that if it was a Democrat governor that was embroiled in the free golf controversy, I think he would take a much harder stance on the situation than he does with Taft. Instead he plays it off like it's no big deal, and talks about something called Goofus and Gallant, which I've never heard of. Perhaps it's some 1950's cartoon, which again shows how out of touch he is with the present day. Personally I would have preferred a Heckle and Jeckle reference instead.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Adam
Reality Bytes
I can't hear you, la la la la la!
Three months ago the city of Mason passed a 9.94 mil (if someone could define a mil for me I would appreciate it) school levy by a 53-47% margin. Well now some group called the Citizens for Accountability and Results in Education (CARE) has gathered signatures to challenge the levy. They're looking to get a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot to render the levy null and void. They might as well just call their group SCREW YOU.
Apparently this is the new right strategy to battling election results they don't like; act like it didn't happen in the first place. Notice that nowhere in the article do they challenge the validity of the results of the election. They just didn't like the outcome, so now they want to get their own measure on the ballot to see how that goes. CARE president John Meyer stated the following: "It's in bad character by school officials in trying to stop the will of the people to vote on a tax issue". Funny how he doesn't have quite the concern of stopping the will of the people when it came to the tax levy, but trying to stop the will of the people who want to stop the will of the people is in bad character. (I know people will try to compare this to the Bush/Gore election. Gore asked for a recount; that's tremendously different from this situation.)
I also wonder if this proposed referendum gets on the ballot and passes, will CARE object if Mason puts the levy back on the ballot in May? I'd say that's at least fair, it'd be a tiebreaker, best two out of three vote. That sounds silly I know, but this whole situation is as well.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Apparently this is the new right strategy to battling election results they don't like; act like it didn't happen in the first place. Notice that nowhere in the article do they challenge the validity of the results of the election. They just didn't like the outcome, so now they want to get their own measure on the ballot to see how that goes. CARE president John Meyer stated the following: "It's in bad character by school officials in trying to stop the will of the people to vote on a tax issue". Funny how he doesn't have quite the concern of stopping the will of the people when it came to the tax levy, but trying to stop the will of the people who want to stop the will of the people is in bad character. (I know people will try to compare this to the Bush/Gore election. Gore asked for a recount; that's tremendously different from this situation.)
I also wonder if this proposed referendum gets on the ballot and passes, will CARE object if Mason puts the levy back on the ballot in May? I'd say that's at least fair, it'd be a tiebreaker, best two out of three vote. That sounds silly I know, but this whole situation is as well.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Write not, lest people think ye meant what ye wrote
In yesterday's Enquirer, Charlie Winburn reacts to the controversy surrounding comments he made in his 1989 book "Ruling and Reigning in the 90's". Unfortunately for him, he then tries to re-write history by saying what he really meant by some of his statements (in the block 'if I had to rewrite that section of it). Let's check out how he trips over himself:
Selection 1
What he wrote in 1989: he decries separation of church and state, then comments how Satan wants to keep Christians out of everyday life so he can control their destiny, then finishes with a biblical quote that Satan wants control of the people and God.
What he would write in 2005: claims that separation was used to tell Christians to stay out of government, but then says all religions should participate in government.
My take: Ummm...no...separation was put in to keep religion out of government, it has nothing to do with keeping people out of government. And I don't see how the comment about Satan somehow meant that all religions should get in the game.
Selection 2
1989: the infamous passage that said Christians should clean up politics by only elect born-agains, and those who were not should be unseated.
2005: now he believes in loving kindness, and that he's tolerant of everyone, and he would rephrase that everyone should respect the laws of the land and respect each other.
My take: in the words of Chandler Bing, that is so not the same thing. His first quote had nothing to do with national law, it was about religious fanaticism. There's no love in that statement, it's practically a call to arms. Don't try and distract by changing the subject.
Selection 3
1989 old school: the pastor and his church are under commandment to teach more than itself, and if politicians are not Christians they should be taught the ways and acts of God. They should go to them aggressively, but with love.
2005 remix: It's all about the love. People in authority should be respected and people should not use religion to discriminate.
My take: wha whaa whaaat? The first passage is evangelical zealotry, but suddenly he doesn't want religion to enter into the equation. Again, distraction is the key; change the subject and all is forgiven.
So you'd think the crapfest is done? Noooooo, not even close. Charlie then whines that 'Tim Burke created this religious war' by making the book quotes public. Chuck (can I call you Chuck), the only religious war is in your mind. Tim was only revealing quotes from a book that you wrote! Don't expect to make comments like that and then not have them come back to bite you in the ass, and then try to paint yourself as the victim of a religious attack.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Selection 1
What he wrote in 1989: he decries separation of church and state, then comments how Satan wants to keep Christians out of everyday life so he can control their destiny, then finishes with a biblical quote that Satan wants control of the people and God.
What he would write in 2005: claims that separation was used to tell Christians to stay out of government, but then says all religions should participate in government.
My take: Ummm...no...separation was put in to keep religion out of government, it has nothing to do with keeping people out of government. And I don't see how the comment about Satan somehow meant that all religions should get in the game.
Selection 2
1989: the infamous passage that said Christians should clean up politics by only elect born-agains, and those who were not should be unseated.
2005: now he believes in loving kindness, and that he's tolerant of everyone, and he would rephrase that everyone should respect the laws of the land and respect each other.
My take: in the words of Chandler Bing, that is so not the same thing. His first quote had nothing to do with national law, it was about religious fanaticism. There's no love in that statement, it's practically a call to arms. Don't try and distract by changing the subject.
Selection 3
1989 old school: the pastor and his church are under commandment to teach more than itself, and if politicians are not Christians they should be taught the ways and acts of God. They should go to them aggressively, but with love.
2005 remix: It's all about the love. People in authority should be respected and people should not use religion to discriminate.
My take: wha whaa whaaat? The first passage is evangelical zealotry, but suddenly he doesn't want religion to enter into the equation. Again, distraction is the key; change the subject and all is forgiven.
So you'd think the crapfest is done? Noooooo, not even close. Charlie then whines that 'Tim Burke created this religious war' by making the book quotes public. Chuck (can I call you Chuck), the only religious war is in your mind. Tim was only revealing quotes from a book that you wrote! Don't expect to make comments like that and then not have them come back to bite you in the ass, and then try to paint yourself as the victim of a religious attack.
Adam
Reality Bytes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)