Capital Punishment

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:04 am

Bush a Moderate? Right of Centre? Solidly Right? Far Right? Ultra-Right?

It depends how you look at the political spectrum, and more importantly, where you yourself belong on that spectrum. Personally, I'm as far right as you can get, and wholeheartedly wish that Ashcroft will remain Attorney General until abortion is indefinitely proscribed. Since my point of view is far right, however, I see Bush sitting somewhere Right of Center. As conservative as he may be, to me he's not conservative enough.

Now if you ask a liberal or a socialist what he thinks of George Bush, what would you expect to hear? That's he's moderate? Right of Center? Far Right? I think it depends on the extremity of his position on the political spectrum. The further left he leans, the further right he will categorize Bush, and vice versa. Since a majority of Americans view themselves as Moderate, it makes sense that they see Bush lying somewhere between themselves and the social conservative voters that comprise the Republican base, that is - Centre Right.

Since a large majority of the Christian Right voted for Bush instead of Gore, and supported his campaign more than any other interest group (except perhaps the NRA), it also makes perfect sense that Bush would fill his cabinet with conservatives and nominate judges in the mould of Renquist, Thomas, and Scalia His father made the mistake of alienating social conservatives in '92, and consequently lost the presidency to Bill Clinton. The son is determined not to repeat this mistake, and if that means ruffling a few liberal feathers, then so be it. You can't win without your base intact, and come 2004, Bush'll have them in his corner.

...

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:12 am

Eminem writes:
Since a majority of Americans view themselves as Moderate, it makes sense that they see Bush lying somewhere between themselves and the social conservative voters that comprise the Republican base, that is - Centre Right.

Opinion polls by all the major pollsters (including those retained by the Republican party) have consistently shown that over the last two months, George W Bush is regarded as "extremely conservative" by the majority of Americans.

Since a large majority of the Christian Right voted for Bush instead of Gore, and supported his campaign more than any other interest group (except perhaps the NRA), it also makes perfect sense that Bush would fill his cabinet with conservatives and nominate judges in the mould of Renquist, Thomas, and Scalia

I would suggest there's a flaw in that: a president who receives less of a popular vote than his rival, though he may win, must rule from the center if he desires to retain any influence.

His father made the mistake of alienating social conservatives in '92, and consequently lost the presidency to Bill Clinton.

I'm afraid I don't see this as making much sense, either logically or historically. Consider: even if you're a farright conservative who is annoyed at the moderate stand on some issues of one conservative candidate, are you going to vote for his opponent who is (by your standards) a flaming radical? No, you're going to grit your teeth and bear it. That's why the Christian Right, for instance, has traditionally supported conservative candidates financially, even those who supported abortion rights legislation.

This also isn't borne out by the historical facts. There wasn't a mention of this issue by the Republican or Democratic think tanks or analysis teams post election; Bush lost, not the conservative right, but the mid-ground, as post mortem polls show, because Clinton was the first Democrat since Truman who could actively and successfully position himself there.

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:43 pm

Bush didn’t win the popular vote, but his political strategy thus far has been brilliant, and that is to act as if he did, complete with a mandate and honeymoon session to boot. He shows little effort of letting the middle (much less the left) control his conservative agenda. Whether or not he will “rule from the center to retain influence” remains to be seen. It worked for Clinton. I personally doubt Bush will do so, or even if doing so is a good idea to begin with. He campaigned as a
conservative, was elected as a conservative, and thus should govern as a conservative. It worked for Reagan.

The 2000 Election was a statistical tie, but a breakdown of the polling results indicated that Southern Protestants voted for Bush 58% over Gore 40%. The evangelical vote (about 25%-35% of the Republican base) was as crucial to Bush as the African American vote was crucial to Gore (though to a lesser extent). Among Republican voters, no other bloc demonstrated a greater degree of difference. Bush would not be President had the above variable been a single percentage closer. In 1992, Christians did not support the father in the same way they supported the son. They either voted for Ross Perot, or refused to vote at all. Clinton benefited from both alternatives. I think Bush’s loss had to do as much with a fractured base as Clinton’s successful positioning himself in the middle.

...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:06 pm

Originally posted by Garcia:

funny you mentioned that I just read that he was two days ago in Sweden and that there was an "assult" (if that is what it is called) on Bush. 5 men or so tried to kill him. I don't remember what contry the assassins came from....Denmark but they got them in time and locked them up.

No, no, no, this must be a horrible media hype. Nothing of the sort happened. The Swedish police arrested some 20 people, and decided to keep 5-6 of them because they are suspected for planning violent demostrations, vandalism and disrupting the meeting between GW Bush and the EU people. The arrests were made hours before Bush even landed on Swedish soil (which he did Thursday).

About 20 000 people has been demonstrating in Gothenburg, most of them not opposing Bush as much as the EU. Sweden is one of the most EU negative countries in the EU, and lots of different organisations are expressing their dissatisfaction, primarily with the trading policy of the EU.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:40 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
Bush a Moderate? Right of Centre? Solidly Right? Far Right? Ultra-Right?

.....

Since my point of view is far right, however, I see Bush sitting somewhere Right of Center. As conservative as he may be, to me he's not conservative enough.

I cannot comment on how Bush is viewed from a US perspective since I'm European, but certainly the politics he represent are very right wing from a European perspective.

We all know definitions of political ideoligies vary a lot across cultures, and that different aspects of a certain ideology are emphasised differently. (For instance, compare the US democracy, the North West Europe democracy and the African Democracy)

In Sweden, Bush is viewed as ultra right wing and ultra conservative, and this is probably due to the differencies in both the scale left-right, AND, more importantly, the differencies in what factors are used to define political ideology.

In Europe, there has been a movement towards the centre for many years now, depending both on the growing middle class and the fall of the USSR and the Eastern communism. What differs Swedish left and right wing are mostly issues like taxes, privatisation v government control, views on trading policy etc. Most of the questions where the parties differ are concerning economics. Many of the views Bush represent are represented in Sweden only by very extreme organisations.

Oh, I almost forgot to comment on you original question: capital punishment.

Principally and theoretically I do not support it. Also, I think the question on whether or not to use it, should not be focused either on revenge issues or compensation issues. IMPO death penalty can only be supported if there are no other means of keeping a population safe.

Death penalty is irreversable. It's also morally absurd to kill someone for killing others. I think lifelong imprisonment with no parole is a better solution. What do we really achive with death penalty that is not achived with life imprisonment?

Also, I do not support both the view that some people are just "evil" by nature. IMO there are no good or evil people, the human nature is neither good or evil, but we are all capable of carrying out good or evil acts depending on situation, context, time, culture and personal preference. Viewing terrorists or serial killers as "evil" is a misleading simplification of problems within the human nature and the world we have constructed to live in, and such a simplification will not help us prevent such horrible acts.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:10 pm

Eloquently put, Elegans. Your personal beliefs were succinct and passionately argued. But I still disagree with some of them.

Shakespeare himself appeared divided on this issue. In the following passage, the speaker is Portia as defense attorney:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain of heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives & him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power
The attribute of awe and majesty.
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this scepter's sway, -
It is enthroned in the heart of kings.
It is an attribute to God himself;
Earthly power doth men then show likest God
When mercy seasons justice.

Merchant of Venice, IV,I

The following passage may not be as famous as the one above, but it defends the opposing argument rather well. The speaker is Angelo, a magistrate/prosecuter:

I show pity most of all when I show justice,
For then I pity those I do not know,
Which a dismissed offense would after gall;
And do him right that, answering one foul wrong,
Lives not to act another.

Measure for Measure, II, II

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:32 pm

Eminem, I really love Shakespeare and many of his contemporaries. I even bother to read them in original spelling Elizabethan English, and I think it's part of the great world literature.

But I fail to see how quotes from our great poet can be used as arguments in this debate? Did I miss something, or did you just want to make a point?

Btw, I know you don't agree with me, the day you and I agree on politic issues is probably the day when the moon turns to green cheese

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:58 pm

Wow! An admirer of Shakespeare! What a coincidence. I'm graduating next month with an honors degree in English. I'm pretty well acquainted with the Bard, but I much prefer the Romantic poets, especially Keats and Shelly.

Did I have a point to make? Not really. I just felt like quoting Shakespeare.

...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 7:10 pm

Heh Eminem, here's certainly something we can agree on

You don't need a reason to quote great literature, it just feels good

I'm not sure what a honour degree means, or what it's equivalent to in my education system?

I also like both Keats and Shelley, but I have a preference for English literture in general.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 7:37 pm

Honors degree means you take a few more courses in your chosen subject. Other than that, I don't think it's that much different from a Bachelor's degree.

What's your favorite Shakespeare play, by the way?

Mine is Hamlet. I actually had the chance to play him once in a talent show. The "To or not to be" soliloquy, I mean. Okay, okay, it was a Gong Show, and I was summarily gonged after the fourth line. But still, I can chalk that up on my resume, right? My favorite line from Hamlet is

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy."

and also

"How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world!"

Precisely the way I felt before discovering CPRGs!

Did you know that second to the Bible, Hamlet is the most often quoted book in literature? And this from the mind of one writer.

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in aptitude, in form and moving how express and admirable. In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!"

...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:15 pm

Having played Hamlet must be nice to put in you CV

I know Hamlet is the most quoted book next to the Bible, I agree with you it's quite amazing. I sometimes wonder what made Shakespeare so enormously appreciated compared to his contemporaries. Maybe it's like Ben Johnson wrote "He was not of an age, but of all time".

My favorite play is King Lear. It's a bit different from most of his other great plays. The "wheel of fortune" concept is less visible, there is no justice in the end, not even in an abstract or symbolic way. I sort of like the dark, creepy atmosphere of meaninglessness in that play.

Btw, have you read the infamous erraneous (sp?) quarto version of Hamlet? It's so full of mistakes so it's worth reading for the laugh. If you haven't read it, I'll post some quotes later on, it's really horrible.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:55 pm

C Elegans writes:
My favorite play is King Lear. It's a bit different from most of his other great plays. The "wheel of fortune" concept is less visible, there is no justice in the end, not even in an abstract or symbolic way. I sort of like the dark, creepy atmosphere of meaninglessness in that play.

Absolutely! My favorite, and for precisely the same reasons. I suspect this kind of meaningless hand-of-fate thing is also why its one of the most popular Shakespearean plays in Russia. They even made a movie of it back in the 1950's (fortunately subtitled), which I've got a copy of.

Back in college, however, I had the misfortune of playing Ulysees in Troilus and Cressida: possibly Shakespeare's most wordy and boring character, in his most wordy, driest play. Though I never could disagree with his cynical, half regretful words:

"Time, my lord, hath a wallet at his back, wherein he puts alms for oblivion. A great-sized monster of ingratitude!"

Funny thing, which I knew would happen: when I came to the phrase, "One touch of kindness makes the whole word kin," you could actually hear a unified gasp from the audience each night, as they thought to themselves, "So *that's* where that line comes from! Cool!"

But Shakespeare wasn't the only great Elizabethan playwright. It's amazing how many there were, how varied their voices, their intent, their ways of thinking! I enjoy Jonson's Bartholemew Fair, though his more relentless comedies (like The Alchemist and Volpone) leave me with a chill; and Chapman's slow but moving tragedies. Great stuff, all.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 6:18 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Back in college, however, I had the misfortune of playing Ulysees in Troilus and Cressida: possibly Shakespeare's most wordy and boring character, in his most wordy, driest play.

....

But Shakespeare wasn't the only great Elizabethan playwright. It's amazing how many there were, how varied their voices, their intent, their ways of thinking! I enjoy Jonson's Bartholemew Fair, though his more relentless comedies (like The Alchemist and Volpone) leave me with a chill; and Chapman's slow but moving tragedies. Great stuff, all.

I agree with you that Troilus and Cressid is quite a boring play, although I think "Timon of Athens", "A winter's tale" and "King John" were even more sleep inducing.

Regarding other great Elizabethan writers, I love sir Philip Sidney's "The countess of Pembroke's Arcadia". Have you read Edmund Spenser's "Faerie Qveen"? If you like both Renaissance literature AND fantasy, that should be optimal, though many people find Spenser's stanzas labourous to read.

My personal favorite among Shakespeare's contemporaries is Christopher Marlowe. Ben Johnson is very amusing and has a better language than most, but I appreciate Marlowe for his dark portraits of the human hunger for power and glory. There are no heroes in Marlowe's plays, everybody is driven by petty selfish motives like greed, power, jealousy etc. Tamburlaine I think is his greatest play.

Btw, I have a Russian 1960's movie version of Hamlet, it's also very good. Haven't seen the King Lear, unfortunately. Have you seen Kurosawa's Macbeth, called "Throne of blood"? That one is a masterpiece IMO.

Sorry Eminen, I've drifted quite far away from you topic...

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 8:12 pm

Alright here is my opinion. The death sentence should be carried out for some, and for others not. I believe killing doesn't always deserve the death sentence. Race and discrimination killings, like Hitler, should be awarded the death sentence. Also, personal killings, like murdering someone with the intent of doing it deserves it too. School shooters that kill should be put to death as well. Child killings as well. Also, other crimes should awarded the death penalty, a major one being rape.

But, in McVeigh's case, I believe he should not have been executed. Several terrorist groups should not giving the death sentence either. They are fighting for an ideaology. Sure, some of the ideaology may be f***ed up, so not all ideaology is ok. Any racial discrimination should be givin zero tolerence. But against political ideals, like McVeigh, I believe they should not be executed. Some exceptions apply, though.

Sure, my reason may not be sound, but this is what I believe. I live in Canada, where there is no death sentence, so I just look at the US and see both sides of this issue. I may have forgotten some things, but hey, I'm 14 and its 11:30 at night.

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Gaxx_Firkraag ]