Saturday, August 8, 2015

WEEKEND POTPOURRI




Yes the Dog Days of August are with us, and blog writing as well as reading assumes the role of a secondary interest for all. There are still subjects that deserve comments and/or opinions which will be addressed PRN (when as needed).

First there will be a Council Agenda Fixing Meeting Monday the 10th. A preliminary glance at the meeting’s agenda shows only a few questionable controversial proposed resolutions that will require reading the support material.

Two Ordinances for first reading deal with the proposed South Ave Development; one is for a PILOT agreement, the other to vacate old South Ave. Since the Planning Board has yet to approve the project with various variances, are these Ordinances premature?

Thursday night was the first of the Republican Candidates' “Debates”. Aside from the fact that Carly Fiorino, a member of the second string group, clearly outshone all the others there was no winner. I think that of the chosen 10, Rand Paul was a loser. Trump of course did nothing to endear himself to me and may have tarnished his unexplainable appeal.

The format and nature of these so called Debates do not conform to any of these definitions of the term “debate”: “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward” (Oxford Dictionary). Merriam-Webster defines the term as: “a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure by a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.”

In these debates and this one in particular the moderator (Facilitator) rarely asked the same question to more than one candidate and at best and rarely at that, to only three. In this format questions can be loaded for the candidates benefit, and occasionally prepared to bate as was the case with some for Trump. The moderator can slant the debate to promote one individual or destroy another. There is no opportunity to compare the views of various candidates.

I also felt that a disproportional number of questions were put to Walker, Bush, and Trump. Some seemed aimed to promote Walker, and perhaps Ohio’s Governor, Kasich, the local boy. Kasich did well, but I liked Carson’s relaxed demeanor and sense of humor that was lacking in the other nine.

One final weekend note; Once again a single holdout prevented the death penalty for a person whose actions deserve3it. This was the result in the trial of Holmes the Aurora Colorado theater killer of 12 and permanent disability of others. So he is in prison for life but that is not the eye for eye that those who suffered from this dastardly act deserved.

3 comments:

  1. Isn't it curious how a domestic terrorist who guns down many people can survive to get to trial and then live for the rest of their life in prison. Other domestic terrorists that don't make it is because they take themselves out. And then there are others that can get shot down in the street with little to no provocation and no trial. Yes it's a curious time we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doc, more than 20 years ago we had a case in Plainfield where a man was tried and convicted for the gruesome murder of two children. The prosecution sought the death penalty but one juror held out, so the sentence was life without parole. He has since been exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence and is now a free man. Granted, the circumstances are very different but the death penalty is misused a lot--hundreds of people have been exonerated, and who knows how many more have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. Most cases are not as cut-and-dried as the one you are addressing. But the real issue needs to be, in many cases, how can we be sure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dotti, your argument does illustrate one of two reasons against the Death Penalty. It should be applicable where there is irrefutable evidence of the crime. If overzealous police or DAs, prosecuters have tampered with the facts they should be subject to maximum penalties.The other valid argument against it is that it has become a prolong legal football with years of appeals before it is ever enacted. The costs to the public aare greater than life long imprisonment, and the victim's families do not get the closure they desire. I do not hold to the claim that it is inhuman.

      Delete