As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a real political junkie. I am really interested in politics and political strategies. I have strong feelings about issues but love to watch and learn from any political party or entity. From the time I was just a youngster I have stayed up and watched political conventions of the two major parties in this country. Sometimes that has meant little sleep for sustained periods.
This year is no different, although the Republican Convention in Tampa has already had delays and will be shortened due to Tropical Storm Isaac and now people are even talking about moving to one day conventions in the long term. It's been many years since real candidate decisions have been made at national conventions. Everyone has known for months that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee. We all also knew that President Obama would be the Democratic nominee. But there are new things that can happen at conventions. For one thing people have a chance to learn more about candidates. In addition, delegates and surrogates can cause or get into trouble and what party they belong to makes no difference.
So this week all attention is on the Republicans and Mitt Romney. Next week it will be the Democrats and President Obama. So I expect to be spending a lot of time watching all of the proceedings on tv and getting a little less sleep.
I was listening to some commentary on the radio yesterday that reminded me of a convention from the past. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was nominated as the Republican candidate for President. It's really interesting that George Romney, Mitt Romney's father, was the spokesperson for the moderate wing of the Republican party that year. He was very concerned about the direction of the party and its move toward the right. He spoke out strongly and fought for a plank in the party platform that year to support civil rights legislation. He lost that battle. He fought hard against what he considered to be Goldwater's extremism. I learned through the commentary yesterday that Mitt Romney attended that convention as a 17 year old and watched his father try to stand for moderation in the party. The senior Romney wrote Goldwater after the convention pointing out why the party needed to be more inclusive rather then moving in one direction or the other.
Here we are in 2012 with Mitt Romney seeming to move further and further to the right of center and it makes one wonder if he thinks about that convention in 1964 and what his father was trying to accomplish. I guess we'll see.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The Execution of Marvin Wilson
Let me say right off the bat that I’m opposed to capital punishment. Always have been and probably always will be. I’ve never believed the ‘eye for an eye’ concept as any kind of good public policy, but more on that in future posts. A Texas man convicted in the shooting death of a 21-year-old man in 1992 was executed Tuesday in Huntsville. Marvin Wilson was pronounced dead at 6:27 p.m. (7:27 p.m. ET) on August 7, 2012.
Here’s the thing. Wilson's IQ had been measured in testing at 61. Wilson, 54, had been declared "intellectually disabled" by a court-appointed neuropsychologist. "Despite all the signs of Mr. Wilson's intellectual disabilities and the diagnosis of the court-appointed neuropsychologist, the District Court of Jefferson County (Texas) concluded that Mr. Wilson is not mentally retarded," according to a posting by the ACLU, with "not" italicized for emphasis.
Wilson was convicted in the shooting death of Jerry Robert Williams in Beaumont, Texas. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Williams was abducted and shot after a "physical confrontation" between the two men. Obviously, Wilson needed to be held accountable for his actions and that could have been done in a much more humane way than death by lethal injection.
Now I haven’t seen the court records or its final determination in this case but it sure sounds like the court may not have understood that the older term “mentally retarded” is in fact included in the newer terminology of intellectual disability as defined by the federal government. I don’t know if it is the case but what a shame if a man was executed because a court didn’t understand the definition of an intellectual disability.
The Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that executing individuals with an intellectual disability is unconstitutional. The problem is that in that ruling the Court left it to the individual states in determining the level of disability. Ergo, Marvin Wilson’s problem - Texas and it’s definition/determination.
What really amazes me is the deafening silence from groups that present themselves as advocates for people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities - The Arc and NYSARC are examples but there are others. These organizations have a bully pulpit of sorts and are in a position to educate the general public, politicians, lawyers and other advocates and professionals.
The United States is in the minority when it comes to capitol punishment in general. We should certainly be able to make clear determinations about the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. This decision by the Texas Court was a slap in the face to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court turned down Wilson’s appeal, so they took the slap. Within the same week, the individual who killed and wounded people in Arizona copped a plea and got life in prison. Strange and sad that Marvin Wilson didn’t have a chance.
Here’s the thing. Wilson's IQ had been measured in testing at 61. Wilson, 54, had been declared "intellectually disabled" by a court-appointed neuropsychologist. "Despite all the signs of Mr. Wilson's intellectual disabilities and the diagnosis of the court-appointed neuropsychologist, the District Court of Jefferson County (Texas) concluded that Mr. Wilson is not mentally retarded," according to a posting by the ACLU, with "not" italicized for emphasis.
Wilson was convicted in the shooting death of Jerry Robert Williams in Beaumont, Texas. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Williams was abducted and shot after a "physical confrontation" between the two men. Obviously, Wilson needed to be held accountable for his actions and that could have been done in a much more humane way than death by lethal injection.
Now I haven’t seen the court records or its final determination in this case but it sure sounds like the court may not have understood that the older term “mentally retarded” is in fact included in the newer terminology of intellectual disability as defined by the federal government. I don’t know if it is the case but what a shame if a man was executed because a court didn’t understand the definition of an intellectual disability.
The Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that executing individuals with an intellectual disability is unconstitutional. The problem is that in that ruling the Court left it to the individual states in determining the level of disability. Ergo, Marvin Wilson’s problem - Texas and it’s definition/determination.
What really amazes me is the deafening silence from groups that present themselves as advocates for people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities - The Arc and NYSARC are examples but there are others. These organizations have a bully pulpit of sorts and are in a position to educate the general public, politicians, lawyers and other advocates and professionals.
The United States is in the minority when it comes to capitol punishment in general. We should certainly be able to make clear determinations about the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. This decision by the Texas Court was a slap in the face to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court turned down Wilson’s appeal, so they took the slap. Within the same week, the individual who killed and wounded people in Arizona copped a plea and got life in prison. Strange and sad that Marvin Wilson didn’t have a chance.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Understanding Hate!
Both the shooting in Aurora, Colorado and the recent attack on worshippers at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin have me wondering and struggling with the issue of hate and its relationship to violence. I think it's pretty obvious that guns are out of control in this country but the bigger issue is that of hate, hate mongering, hate crimes and their relationship to violence.
What is it in our make up and/or backgrounds that allow us to use hateful language in conversations and sad attempts at humor? What is it that allows a seemingly nice, gentle person to make a wisecrack about another person or a group of people who are different due to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, size, age, etc.? We've all seen it and if we're honest, have probably participated on some level. Why?
People make excuses - "That's just Joe.", "It's the alcohol talking.", "She's young." - but the fact is we all participate at some level and when we do, those around us watch and learn. Yup, we're all teachers when it comes to the acceptance of making fun of people or speaking nonsense about groups of people.
But there are bigger issues. Like why do people really think racist or discriminatory comments are funny? What streak of meanness in all of us is satisfied by hateful comments? What is it in our backgrounds or growing up that makes any of this acceptable?
I'm truly at a loss. I do know though that societies all over the world have the same issues and we don't spend enough time trying to figure it out. Or we take the easy way out and chalk it off to adolescence, alcohol, stupidity and so forth.
Although I continue to struggle with understanding where this all comes from, I've concluded that as many people as possible have to begin or continue to speak out against hate when they see it. Walking away from a group or a conversation, speaking up, or speaking to people privately about our discomfort and nonacceptance are all ways to witness against hateful language. It also helps when families, teachers and leaders have conversations about hate and hate speech and hate humor. It has to start and stop somewhere.
What is it in our make up and/or backgrounds that allow us to use hateful language in conversations and sad attempts at humor? What is it that allows a seemingly nice, gentle person to make a wisecrack about another person or a group of people who are different due to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, size, age, etc.? We've all seen it and if we're honest, have probably participated on some level. Why?
People make excuses - "That's just Joe.", "It's the alcohol talking.", "She's young." - but the fact is we all participate at some level and when we do, those around us watch and learn. Yup, we're all teachers when it comes to the acceptance of making fun of people or speaking nonsense about groups of people.
But there are bigger issues. Like why do people really think racist or discriminatory comments are funny? What streak of meanness in all of us is satisfied by hateful comments? What is it in our backgrounds or growing up that makes any of this acceptable?
I'm truly at a loss. I do know though that societies all over the world have the same issues and we don't spend enough time trying to figure it out. Or we take the easy way out and chalk it off to adolescence, alcohol, stupidity and so forth.
Although I continue to struggle with understanding where this all comes from, I've concluded that as many people as possible have to begin or continue to speak out against hate when they see it. Walking away from a group or a conversation, speaking up, or speaking to people privately about our discomfort and nonacceptance are all ways to witness against hateful language. It also helps when families, teachers and leaders have conversations about hate and hate speech and hate humor. It has to start and stop somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)