I normally do not do this, but there are three things that I cannot stand.
- Someone using the art of movable standards.
- Someone accusing me of censorship.
- Someone asking an academically dishonest question to prove a point.
Enter my earlier post "Whining Piety" and comments from "a life well lived."
This person asked in regards to the governor and his stance on the death penalty, "SHOW ME AN SCHEDULED EXECUTION THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE IN MARYLAND BECAUSE OF ANYTHING DONE OR NOT DONE BY THIS GOVERNOR."
This is disingenuous on its very face for the following reasons. The defacto moratorium was decided in December 2006, after the election in which then-Governor Robert Ehrlich (R) was defeated. No one in their right mind would start an issue for their successor to deal with a month later. So to ask if there were any scheduled executions that didn't take place is not only a dishonest question, but a "gotcha" question in order to say, "I got one over on you."
In addition, it's a misplaced question to boot. The question is whether Governor O'Malley honored his oath of office by not being proactive on it either way, instead of leaving the issue in limbo, and in my opinion (and that of The Washington Times) he did not.
Since you are not impressed with The Washington Times, how about The Capital in Annapolis whose very editorial from April 20 was titled "Death penalty issue needs decision, not endless delays." The editorial board wrote, "We have no problem with capital punishment, but if the people of the state - through their legislators - want to abolish it and replace it with a system of ironclad life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences, so be it. We do have a problem with endless procrastination, legalistic nitpicking and waiting on the outcome of jury-rigged studies."
I am for the death penalty, but if the people through their legislators want to abolish it so be it. But to call me blood thirsty, is unfair. It is similar to calling someone who does not agree with the current war in Iraq, unpatriotic.
In addition, I heard O'Malley on WBAL (1090AM) on the day where he announced that new protocols be issues for the death penalty. As the saying goes, it's not the words, it's how the words are said. The way he said his words were similar to the times from earlier this year he complained about his low poll numbers and similar to when he complained about this being the toughest year he has had politically.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, they did what they were suppose to do. The agreed to hear the Kentucky case in September. That news happened nearly 10 months after O'Malley took office, and nearly half a year after the 2007 general assembly session ended. O'Malley could have easily started the process of issuing new protocols at that point as there was no guarantee that the supreme court would hear the case in question. The high court heard the arguments in January and it was decided in April, a few months ahead of scheduled. Reports from September speculated that it would be summer before a decision is rendered.
I am not asking you to be impressed. Admittedly, there are some people who do write better than I do that I am impressed with. I am simply here to present an argument and get you to think about it whether you agree, disagree or otherwise.
Now to another comment made by "a life well lived" which actually involves a movable standard. He asks in the entry "Black Wall of Silence" the following:
"Where's you're demand that Sen. David Vitter resign from the Senate in shame for his continuous and unabashed infidelity and declaration that because he hasn't resigned yet, the entire Republican Party is responsible and a "REPUBLICAN WALL OF SILENCE."
Since you seem to be fond of playing the intellectual stalker, I am sure you read my most recent PolitickerMD.com column "Ronald Reagan is Dead" where I stated that "Not every person in a political party agrees with each other, but they have core values that unite them." That means that I do not agree with everything in the Republican Party. Lord knows that statement could not be any truer for the Democratic Party, although I am mindful of Will Rogers and his famous quote.
Remember folks, I was a supporter of BILL Clinton when he was President. I still say to this day that the whole impeachment trial involving Lewinsky-gate was a waste of taxpayer money, just to find out if Clinton had a chick on the side. Not that I am a fan of Adultery, but Sen. Vitter was in the same category as Clinton in regards to having an extra-marital affair. The congressman who resigned recently was just reckless. By the way, I don't care if they are Democratic or Republican, if you acted as Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) did, I think you should resign.
And finally (and I apologize in advance for this one to those who will find this over the top,) Who the hell do you think you are in accusing me of being "more comfortable with the right-wing pattern of focusing on the real or imagined controversies of liberal African-Americans because you think they are easier targets upon which you can thrust a momentary episode of scorn?" I have as much right to speak on those controversies as you do in taking me to task on my commentaries.
I am sorry that I have made you and the rest of the secret order upset in being honest. I am sorry that I thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wasted everyone's time in getting someone fired who is virtually nothing in regards to the black community, let alone the community at large. I am sorry I am not the good ol' black boy who walks in lock step with the rest of the secret order and agree blindly with the democrats and wallow in victim hood.
As I had said in April, only I will give you an extended version, I was not around for the civil rights era, I cannot relate to black liberation theology, I am not naive to that fact that racism is still around, I have been discriminated against in the past, I have been spat upon, I have been insulted, I have been talked down to, I have been called a nigger TO MY FACE, I have been counted out on race alone, I have been told to give up, I have seen others discriminated against, but instead of looking for a hand out and wallowing in a self-inflicted pity party, I got off of my ass and start chasing bigger fish because my time on this planet is too short and I have goals I would like to achieve before my time is up.
So how friggin' dare you accuse me of taking easy shots at the black community because of things that I see that I do not agree with, that I find offensive and just flat out wrong and goes against the grain of common sense. You tell me what is a good reason to collect welfare at home when you are perfectly able to get a job. Please tell me, what is "white" about learning how to read and speak properly? Please, oh please, explain what is wrong with co-mingling with white people? What was the grand prize for getting Don Imus kicked off of MSNBC and fired from CBS Radio? The latter entity, keep in mind, encouraged Imus to be offensive to everyone. Overall, I am still waiting on an answer from a question I asked last year, how is one qualified as being "black enough." The insulting part is that wallowing in victimhood, begging for a handout and screaming racism when it need not apply ARE CELEBRATED!
From what I recall from the civil rights era is that NO ONE BEGGED FOR JACK! They stood their ground in peaceful protest and worked hard to get everyone's attention about a grave injustice that is not even in agreement with the teachings of Christianity. The fruits of the civil rights movement are being enjoyed by my generation. In case you missed it, Dr. Martin luther King Jr. said that they were bought for cheap! That means there is more work to be done and in my opinion things are good, but when you have a judge in New York that gives a pass to three cops who went trigger happy, we are not quite there yet.
I apologize for those who found the last few paragraphs over the top, but I take GREAT offense to the question that I will continue to leave standing because it need not apply. To the person posing the question, I apologize for nothing I have just said in regards to your question and accusation of me taking shots at black people because its easy. You said the question will sting, congratulations, you were right about something for once in this exchange, but you crossed the line!
Respond if you wish, but keep in mind, I will no longer take you seriously after your last question.
Friday, May 30, 2008
I normally do not do this, but there are three things that I cannot stand.