Thursday, May 02, 2013

Krossed out, and the Doctor waits.

"
A young loveable, huggable type of guy
And everything is the back with a little slack
Cuz inside-out is wiggida wiggida wack
I come stompin' with somethin' pumpin' to keep you jumpin'"


Sadly, one of those "loveable, huggable" guys is dead.

It seems like only yesterday that everybody was "krossed out". The one hit wonders from "The A" had us all jumping.

Chris Kelly died of an apparent drug overdose, which just goes to show you that the realities of the real world is always going to be with us no matter how hard we try to dance -or rap- it away.

"Chris ‘Mac Daddy’ Kelly’s mother, Donna Kelly Pratte, and his uncle told police that her son had an “extensive history of drug use” and that he had taken “speedballs” — a potentially fatal cocktail of heroin and cocaine — the night before his death, TMZ reports.
 
According to the police report, Pratte said that she had taken him home to recover from his latest night of partying — as she had done in the past — but that Kelly had been complaining of feeling nauseous all morning before he eventually passed out." [Source]
 
Finally, I was in the Criminal Justice Center here in Philly today, and I thought I would take a look in the courtroom of the Judge who is presiding over the Gosnell trial.  Unfortunately the room was empty, because the court wisely decided to move the case to a much larger courtroom on the third floor.
 
Anyway, the jury is still deliberating, and folks who are close to the case all say that they have no idea where the jury will come down on this one.  The good doctor has a fine attorney in his corner, but sometimes the wave of public opinion can be like a tsunami. 
One thing I do know is that attempts by folks on the right to paint this as a trial that the national press is ignoring is way off base. There were news trucks all over Filbert Street, today. CNN. FOX. NBC. They were all there. And, like everyone else, they were all just waiting. 
 
Stay tuned.
 
 
 
 

  

43 comments:

Adrian Fernandez said...

Another soul lost to the ravages of drug abuse. Condolences to his family.

estoban said...

"The good doctor has a fine attorney in his corner, but sometimes the wave of public opinion can be like a tsunami."

The "good doctor"? Are you serious? This is a man who snipped the spinal cords of newborn babies, dumped living babies in the toilet, and kept jars full of baby feet in his office. And oh yes, he killed a woman in a botched abortion.

I hope a tsunami washes him right to hell.

Anonymous said...

Field, "Anyway, the jury is still deliberating, and folks who are close to the case all say that they have no idea where the jury will come down on this one. The good doctor has a fine attorney in his corner, but sometimes the wave of public opinion can be like a tsunami."

Well, if the jury is honest and has integrity, Gosnell is guilty on ALL counts. However, I am a Christian and believe in mercy. How's that for faith, my 'good' brotha?

And pray tell, brotha Field, how do you conclude that Gosnell is a 'good' doctor? Oh, I know. It's because he is a brotha. Methinks your moral compass is broken.

Anonymous said...

Dear Field, when the f*** are we going to have lunch at the vendor on Broad St? I'm getting tired of asking and I'm getting tired of not getting an answer.

field negro said...

Anon@8:55pm. My fave street vendor is on 12th Street.

And we can't have lunch at a cart. :)

Estoban, why don't we wait until AFTER the verdict before we judge. If he is found guilty I will agree with you.




Anonymous said...

"One thing I do know is that attempts by folks on the right to paint this as a trial that the national press is ignoring is way off base. There were news trucks all over Filbert Street, today. CNN. FOX. NBC. They were all there. And, like everyone else, they were all just waiting."

Well, I'm Black and Liberal and a Democrat. Let tell you that they have not been covering this murderous scandal the way they should have. If it wasn't for fair and balanced O'Reilly, I would not have known a thing about it. Thank God for that man. He is a real fire ball who will go to any length to bring hard hitting 'truthful' news to the public.

Anonymous said...

Field, "Anon@8:55pm. My fave street vendor is on 12th Street.

And we can't have lunch at a cart. :)"

Sheee-it. I used to eat at a cart all the time when I lived in Philly 20 years ago. The vendors loved me. After a pretzel and a dog, I went into the court room and trounced prosecutors. They used to shake in their boots when I showed up.

Are you saying there has been a law passed that prohibits eating on the street? That is bad for tourism, not that there's much to see anyway.

Anonymous said...

Yo Field, FYI, Glenn Beck is making another comeback! The man has more than 9 lives. Get ready for some fine newsworthy information never before seen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/glenn-beck-the-blaze-cablevision_n_3200825.html?utm_hp_ref=media

MatanzasGV said...

My grson sent the url this morn before i sent it to you late but glad you posted here
Afenhamu sends a shout and say he loves the blog
I told him to work on one and ask for help hint hint

Field i am worn out!!!! lmao

Blue Plate Special said...

Hopefully this doesn’t actually surprise anyone, phony eat-the-rich rhetoric notwithstanding:

The [Economist/YouGov] poll found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 per year approve of Obama’s performance, while he enjoys a 54 percent approval rating among those with incomes higher than that.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year disapprove of the president’s performance, 51 percent to 45 percent. Those earning $40,000 to $100,000 disapprove by a rate of 50 percent to 48 percent.


The well-to-do can afford moonbattery; the rest of us can’t.

The ultra-rich have good reason to approval of Obama. Like its sibling fascism, liberalism is a type of oligarchical collectivism. If you can afford a seat at Big Government’s table, you are part of the oligarchy, and all is well.

If you can’t afford a seat at the table, you are on the menu.

MatanzasGV said...

FIELD:

Good morn on my way to the base gym

i am stepping out on Afrikan mother wit and say that the Doc will be found guilty of something or another based in the sheer alleged brutality of his methods and in my OP this is as it should be.

Abortion for eye is not the issue as much as the alleged accusations against him ie the live births/murders?

There are so many stories here in the bottom that it is hard to decipher the second hand info so you have a better advantage although we have here a Philly retired officer of the court who agrees with me.
However, if my wit is wrong i am sure that i will be sued ;)

i play chess and have lost a few!

The Purple Cow said...

Quote Blue Plate Special

"Hopefully this doesn’t actually surprise anyone, phony eat-the-rich rhetoric notwithstanding:

The [Economist/YouGov] poll found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 per year approve of Obama’s performance, while he enjoys a 54 percent approval rating among those with incomes higher than that.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year disapprove of the president’s performance, 51 percent to 45 percent. Those earning $40,000 to $100,000 disapprove by a rate of 50 percent to 48 percent.

The well-to-do can afford moonbattery; the rest of us can’t.

The ultra-rich have good reason to approval of Obama. Like its sibling fascism, liberalism is a type of oligarchical collectivism. If you can afford a seat at Big Government’s table, you are part of the oligarchy, and all is well."

So 'Blue Plate Special' are you actually Dave Blount or are you simply copying and pasting his work without attribution.

Oh and all political systems are oligarchal. Liberalism certainly has much less in common with fascism than conservatism

Adrian Fernandez said...

I have to agree with MatanzasGv with this one. Field, Do you honestly think any jury will be able to separate their emotions for legal objectivity regardless of what the judge says when they see photos of butchered late term fetus or live birth newborns? The path to objectivity will be an arduous one. Any judge will have to tread softly with this case.

Blue Plate Special said...

Purple Cow: "Oh and all political systems are oligarchal. Liberalism certainly has much less in common with fascism than conservatism"

How so? Outside of wanting to place limits on the sacrosanct female right to kill their babies at anytime up to and immediately after birth, in what way can conservatism be said to be infringing on the rights of citizens or concentrating power in the hands of an elite in a way that could be deemed fascistic?

Gay marriage does not count. No one is advocating preventing homosexuals from having relationships. The issue is whether the privileges accorded to the institution of marriage will be extended to same sex relationships. Neither side of that debate has dealt with what the base issues are.

In general, conservatism seeks to decentralize power as much as practical, leaving as much control as possible in local communities. Modern liberalism (progressivism really) wants a centralized power structure where decisions are made by those they believe best qualified (i.e. an elite).

Liberalism as practiced today is all about the subversion of individual rights in the name of the collective good. It is liberalism that divides society up into groups based on race, gender, ethnicity and class for the purpose of assigning special rights as well as collective punishments.

It is liberalism that seeks to control the wealth of its citizens for the purpose of deciding who will get what. Like the fascists did, liberalism leaves much of the means of production in private hands but asserts control of that production by regulating activities and picking winners and losers (crony capitalism). Being a major Obama donor has been a very lucrative investment.

Like fascism, liberalism seeks to control every aspect of people's lives, no matter how petty. As healthcare is now the purview of the state, anything you do that may affect your health is now the state's business.

Conservativism generates legitimate grass roots movements like the Tea Party, while progressivism creates astroturf movements like Occupy Wall Street that serve the interests of the actual ruling elite.

Liberalism identifies its opponents as enemies of the state (i.e. "teabaggers") and seeks to criminalize their core beliefs (community expressions of Christianity, gun ownership). Professing belief in limited government can now get you on the Terrorist Watch List.

Fascist movements were and are left-wing. Both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and prior to World War II, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States. The Nazis placed on overlay of racist ideology on the model of Italian fascism developed first under Mussolini.

Freedom and respect for individual rights are the core tenets of legitimate and just governments. Progressivism (in all its forms) fails on both counts.

cheronhall said...

Assata. Please.
waiting...

PilotX said...


"In general, conservatism seeks to decentralize power as much as practical, leaving as much control as possible in local communities."

Therein lies the problem. As we see not all communities are created equally. In some communities they would prefer a religious order, see Alabama and the Ten Commandments statue for an example. Call it collectivism but we have seen the results of "local" power or "states rights" and most of the time it isn't pretty.

"Like fascism, liberalism seeks to control every aspect of people's lives, no matter how petty"

Not so, it is conservatives who like to control peoples' lives. Can't buy beer on Sunday? Guess where that happens? A woman can't choose what happens to her body? That ain't liberals.

"and seeks to criminalize their core beliefs (community expressions of Christianity, gun ownership)."

Once again, wrong. We seek to maintain the constitution which seperates government from religion. Why do we need a community religious expression? Isn't religion an individual choice so why are you proposing the state share this expression? How is that limited government or personal responsibility? You can believe anything you want and go to any church you want why do you need your township to make religious expressions? Hypocrisy much? Keep your government Jesus out of my tax funded city hall thankyouverymuch. As far as guns they are a dangerous item that needs regulation, if you need the reason see the post Field did about 5 year olds shooting 2 year olds.
Your overgeneralized rant about liberalism is off base. As a liberal I don't want to control your life by any stretch of the imagination but in areas in which you can affect my life and others you do need some limits.

Adrian Fernandez said...

Not to simplify the issue of Political perspectives; I find the biggest issue is the Interpretation of the US Constitution and its purpose. Some like to refer to its original context (Originalism) and others as it being a "Living Document" that adapts (amends) over time and societal needs. The human condition searches for its Panacea and unfortunately for us it's all about politics.

PilotX said...

"I find the biggest issue is the Interpretation of the US Constitution and its purpose."

Kindof but that is only one part of the political divide. I think it is mostly ideology. Conservatives tend to have a self-centered world view while liberals tend to be more empathetic and accepting. For example, our conservative poster uses the term "Christian" when referring to religion no doubt because she/he is a member of that group. Neither ideology is necessarily good not bad but just focused on different outcomes.

The Purple Cow said...

Part One


"How so? Outside of wanting to place limits on the sacrosanct female right to kill their babies at anytime up to and immediately after birth, in what way can conservatism be said to be infringing on the rights of citizens or concentrating power in the hands of an elite in a way that could be deemed fascistic? "

Where to start?

They want to determine what happens inside women's bodies, they want to insert trans-vaginal ultrasound probes into pregnant girls, they don’t want people to have the right to marry the person they love, they advocate the murder of Pakistani civilians by remote control, they advocate the torture and imprisonment without trial of people they arbitrarily deem to be "enemy combatants", they ban books they don't approve of from public libraries, they expel kids from schools when their science experiments go wrong, but encourage the presence of armed guards in the same school, they claim to be anti-abortion but want to ban free contraception and limit sex education - the only two things in history known to reduce abortion rates in the real world, they believe that people who can't afford health insurance should die, they take wealth from the poor and middle classes and re-distribute it to the very rich then when someone attempts to redress the balance back to how things were in the 1980's they scream that wealth redistribution is "class warfare" conveniently forgetting that it is the rich who declared class warfare on the poor.

**

“In general, conservatism seeks to decentralize power as much as practical”

Total bollocks. Do you have any evidence of that Marxist dream happening anywhere in America? Conservatives have been in power for most of the 20th and 21st centuries in the USA – where is the decentralization? Is Washington less powerful than it was 100 years ago? Of course not. Conservatives pay lip service to decentralization but it is a smokescreen.

**

The Purple Cow said...

Part Two


“
Liberalism as practiced today is all about the subversion of individual rights in the name of the collective good.”

Bullshit. Liberlaism seeks to undo the damage caused by conservatism, and it’s “Fuck you I’m all right Jack” philosophy. Conservatives hate individual rights, because they want a compliant proletariat for capitalism to feed on. Dod Conservatives ever support any U.N.human rights legislation, ever? Answer: No, of course not.

**

“ It is liberalism that divides society up into groups based on race, gender, ethnicity and class…”

Nope, that would be capitalism. Race is a “group” because by accident of birth African Americans are born into a society that hates them, treats them with the upmost contempt, sends them to school in grim slums, denies then opportunities in further education and in jobs. Women are a “group” because they still earn just 77% of what men earn for doing the same job. The working class are a group because millionaires declared class warfare on them the early 1970’s, and thus destroyed the American dream.

**
“Conservativism generates legitimate grass roots movements like the Tea Party…”

Legitimate – riiiiiiiiiiight. A bunch of useful idiots campaigning against their own class interests for a an organization bankrolled by billionaires.

**

“Liberalism identifies its opponents as enemies of the state…”

Bullshit.

**

“Professing belief in limited government can now get you on the Terrorist Watch List.”

Bullshit

The Purple Cow said...

Part Three

“Fascist movements were and are left-wing. Both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and prior to World War II, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States. The Nazis placed on overlay of racist ideology on the model of Italian fascism developed first under Mussolini.”

Oh not this shit again.

About every three weeks on average, some far-Right freak posts this utter shite again, and I have to roll out my destruction of it yet again. I would like to apologize to long-time Field readers for repeating myself, but these people have to be dealt with.

Hitler, Socialists and the “International Jewish Conspiracy”

After WW1 Hitler was stationed in Munich in Bavaria. At that time Kurt Eisner, leader of the Independent Socialist Party, declared Bavaria to be an independent Socialist Republic. Hitler was appalled; he viewed Socialism as simply part of what he called the ‘International Jewish conspiracy’.

Of course Hitler was keenly aware that the father of Socialism – Karl Marx – was a Jew. (This may come as a surprise to you, but Adolph was not mad keen on Jews, in fact it’s fair to say, he was a bit of an anti-Semite.) Most of the key figures in German Socialism at that time, such as Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Toller and Eugene Levine were Jews. Similarly many of the key figures in the Russian October revolution of 1917 had been Jews, such as Trotsky, Radek, Litvinov, Zinoviev and Joffe. Hitler was further outraged in July of 1918, when the Bolsheviks enacted a law that made all discrimination against Jews illegal.

When the German government regained control of Bavaria in 1919, many hundreds of Socialists were summarily executed without trial. To prove his loyalty to the German government and his opposition to Socialism, Hitler volunteered to rat on fellow soldiers who he knew to have Socialist views. So impressed were the Army officers with Hitler’s fervor and anti-Socialist beliefs that they recruited him to be a political officer, lecturing German soldiers on the dangers of Socialism, Communism and Bolshevism

The Purple Cow said...

Part Four – Nazis and Industry

In the time leading up to Hitler’s election he sought to exploit the massive social unrest in Germany by promising to strengthen Trade Unions, while simultaneously promising Germany’s capitalists that he would destroy the trade union movement. Hitler made good to his promises to Capitalists. The Nazis abolished trade unions, all collective bargaining, and the right to strike.

The Nazis enacted the "Charter of Labor" this piece of legislation gave employers total power over their employees. It established a legal position of employer as "leader of the enterprise," The law specifically stated:

"The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."

It continued..

"It’s task is to see that every individual should be able to perform the maximum of work."

Under the new rules between 1932 and 1936, average wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor.

So much for the Socialist tenant of giving workers ‘control of the means of production.’ Remember that V.I. Lenin said the first requirement of a Socialist economy is that the “Commanding Heights” of the economy must be taken into worker control. The Nazis did none of that.

The very first victims of the Nazis mass killing machines were no less than 400,000 Communists, Socialists and Trade Unionists.

The Purple Cow said...

Part Five

Lebensraum – Nazi Philosophy

Hitler replaced the key Marxist concept of class conflict and replaced it with ethnic warfare between Aryans on one side and Jews and Gypsies on the other. Within Germany expressions of class-consciousness were specifically banned by law, Germany’s 100 year history of Social Democratic philosophy was ruthlessly supressed.

The Nazis promoted Völksgemeinschaft, which translates as “folk community.” In this ideology all the economic classes would be united in a struggle to establish a racially pure, Aryan nation, uniquely German in it’s nature and culture. This was in sharp contrast to the prevailing Socialist ideology which was essentially internationalist in nature.

The Nazis were principally nationalists. They sought to occupy other nations in the quest for Lebensraum - living space – where ethnic Germans would lord over lesser races – untermenschen – in a sort of racist paradise. Again a stark contrast to the prevailing socialist paradigm that postulated in international workers living in a borderless society.

Finally looking at the key sources of support for the Nazis, these came politically from aging Right Wing nationalists like Luddendorf and Bismarck, and financially from capitalist families such as the Krupps. It’s difficult – if not impossible - to see why these people would support the Nazis if they had a life-long history of opposing leftist ideology, and would be acting against their own financial interests if the Nazis really had been Socialists.

The Purple Cow said...

Oh one last thing Blue Plate Special, you "forgot" to answer my question.

Are you actually Dave Blount or did you plagiarise his work without attribution?

Blue Plate Special said...

PilotX: Once again, wrong. We seek to maintain the constitution which seperates government from religion. Why do we need a community religious expression? Isn't religion an individual choice so why are you proposing the state share this expression? How is that limited government or personal responsibility?

The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".

That's it.

Community expressions of religion, like a Christmas pageant in a public school, is not a violation of Congressional prohibition of establishing religion.

Using the federal government to prohibit community expressions of religion comes much closer to violating the spirit of the Constitution.

Blue Plate Special said...

Blogger The Purple Cow said...
Part One


"How so? Outside of wanting to place limits on the sacrosanct female right to kill their babies at anytime up to and immediately after birth, in what way can conservatism be said to be infringing on the rights of citizens or concentrating power in the hands of an elite in a way that could be deemed fascistic? "

Where to start?

They want to determine what happens inside women's bodies, they want to insert trans-vaginal ultrasound probes into pregnant girls, they don’t want people to have the right to marry the person they love, they advocate the murder of Pakistani civilians by remote control, they advocate the torture and imprisonment without trial of people they arbitrarily deem to be "enemy combatants", they ban books they don't approve of from public libraries, they expel kids from schools when their science experiments go wrong, but encourage the presence of armed guards in the same school, they claim to be anti-abortion but want to ban free contraception and limit sex education - the only two things in history known to reduce abortion rates in the real world, they believe that people who can't afford health insurance should die, they take wealth from the poor and middle classes and re-distribute it to the very rich then when someone attempts to redress the balance back to how things were in the 1980's they scream that wealth redistribution is "class warfare" conveniently forgetting that it is the rich who declared class warfare on the poor.
-----

I say "Outside of wanting to place limits on the sacrosanct female right to kill their babies" and your first example is abortion. Your second is gay marriage, which, if you understood it, is actually the state trying wrest control of cultural institutions. Your third example is drone killings of Pakistani civilians, the forte of the ultimate progressive President, Barack Obama.

Bush was not a conservative, but in his defense, he never condoned torture. Torture is the gratuitous or malicious infliction of suffering on an individual as punishment or for amusement. Waterboarding a combatant who has information you need is just common sense.

Progressives expel kids from school over science experiments - they control the schools and progressives have banned more books than any conservatives ever have.

"they take wealth from the poor and middle classes and re-distribute it to the very rich " - this is simply insane. Whoever "they" may be who is redistributing wealth, they are not conservative.

You lack the basic ability to reason, and merely regurgitate the lies you hear from your betters.

Blue Plate Special said...

Purple Cow: "Conservatives hate individual rights, because they want a compliant proletariat for capitalism to feed on. Dod Conservatives ever support any U.N.human rights legislation, ever? Answer: No, of course not."

Absurd drivel. The core tenet of conservatism, the thing they are trying to conserve, is the concept of Natural Rights. Human rights initiatives from the UN are typically not true rights at all, they are socialist authoritarian demands that infringe on natural rights.

You then go on to blame conservatism for Liberal Identity Politics - amazing.

Oh, and Hitler was a socialist. Nazi means "National Socialist". Don't take my word for it, here's Adolf himself:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

(Adolf Hitler, Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

He was also an ardent anti-Christian, just like you:

The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future-certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch, and annihilating it in Germany.

You guys have so much in common, even the bad hair - it's really quite remarkable. Maybe you should change your handle to Fascist Cow, or Purple Nazi, or grow yourself a little Hitler stache.

Happy trails, douchebag.

field negro said...

"The core tenet of conservatism, the thing they are trying to conserve, is the concept of Natural Rights. Human rights initiatives.."

As long as the "Human" doesn't look any different than they do.

Blue Plate.... you are twisting Hitler's true goals: To have a "pure race" of Germans rule over his empire.

Sounds familiar? I would say that he was closer to a conservative.

Blue Plate Special said...

Field Negro: "Blue Plate.... you are twisting Hitler's true goals:"

Hitler was a madman. His racist ideology was imposed on an existing fascist framework that had been developed by Italian progressives.

The is nothing conservative about fascism, it was an is an outgrowth of progressivism.

And you slander conservatism by impugning a racial aspect to the ideology. There is none. There are racists of all types, but there is nothing inherently racist about a desire to conserve the culture, tradition and government of America. Modern conservatism is much more color blind that race-obsessed liberalism.

PilotX said...

"The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".

That's it."

Uh no, that's not it. Decades of precident from the Supreme Court has established that public schools cannot favor one religion over another. Talk to a lawyer, like Field, to get the gritty details. By forcing all students to participate in a religious ceremony is in effect the state favoring one specific religion.

Question Blue Plate, if you lived in a community that was predominately Muslin would you have a problem with your children being forced to read the Qu'ran and participate in plays about Muhammad?

PilotX said...

"there is nothing inherently racist about a desire to conserve the culture, tradition and government of America. Modern conservatism is much more color blind that race-obsessed liberalism."

Well, sort of kind of. American culture and tradition had a long history of racism and discrimination. For example, there are some that want to preserve remnants of the confederate south. To many liberals and people of color this was a racist ideology and needs to be abolished not honored. Anyhoo, the conservatives in the media who obsess about a color-blind society are the main professors of color consciousness. Limbaugh regularly talks about race and uses racist language and is a hero to conservatives. If you want to have an honest discussion about which ideology is more race conscious we must first agree on a definition of racism. That is the biggest problem with discussions about race, both sides seem to be talking about two different things.
BTW, it is conservative government that keeps installing confederate history month and flying the confederate flag when they get control of a state house and/or governorship. Take Virginia for example, as soon as Bob McDonnell (sp) was elected as governor one of his forst moves was to establish confederate history month after the previous Democratic governor eliminated it because he knew how racially polarizing it was.

PilotX said...

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, because before the decision could be announced, Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.[3]

The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible.

The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violates the Establishment Clause.

Blue Plate Special said...

"Question Blue Plate, if you lived in a community that was predominately Muslin would you have a problem with your children being forced to read the Qu'ran and participate in plays about Muhammad?"

If I joined a community that was predominately Muslim I would expect to have to conform to the preexisting standards of that community. I would also expect that my child would not be "forced" to read the Koran or participate in religious plays if he/she did not want to.

When I was kid we did not pray or read the bible in school, and our Christmas pageant consisted of singing carols for our parents. It was something that was important to the community and that conveyed a sense of tradition and continuity. Today such expressions are forbidden, and there is not the sense of community that once provided stability. Is that "progress"?

Court precedents convey the changes that occur over time as the law is interpreted by succeeding generations. The strict prohibition of religious expression we have today was not the intent of the original first amendment. So be it if that is the will of the people. But it is in my mind a more intolerant position than letting communities decide what they allow in their schools.

PilotX said...

"Today such expressions are forbidden, and there is not the sense of community that once provided stability. Is that "progress"?"

How so? Can you not perform these acts in a house of worship or your own house? The First Amendment expressly permits the free exercise of religion. Please explain how these acts are prohibited.

The Purple Cow said...

Blue Plate, clearly I'm going to have to school you about how this whole internet debate thing works.

1. You don't get to decide what my arguments are. You can't just demand that I don;t mention abortion or gay marriage because it's inconvenient for your arguments.

2. If I refute your arguments, you need to come back with some kind of proof that your argument stands up.

Simply repeating your previous argument, without leave to some factual points or proofs doesn't advance your argument.

3. You can't keep saying "that's insane" without launching a counter argument that looks something like proof.

It just makes you look desperate.

The Purple Cow said...

Your latest lies and idiocies dealt with one-by-one

“Your third example is drone killings of Pakistani civilians, the forte of the ultimate progressive President, Barack Obama.”

Barack Obama is the most Right wing American President since WW2. Inicidentaly do you have any examples of Republican politicians who are against drone killings of Pakistanis?

**
“Bush was not a conservative, but in his defense, he never condoned torture.”

Yes he did. Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUasA6xeVc

**

“
Progressives expel kids from school over science experiments - they control the schools and progressives have banned more books than any conservatives ever have.”

Do you have ANY evidence for either of these statements?

I’ll wait.

**
“"they take wealth from the poor and middle classes and re-distribute it to the very rich " - this is simply insane. Whoever "they" may be who is redistributing wealth, they are not conservative.
”

Oh yes they were. Billionaires declared class warfare on the poor and middle classes when they arranged for Reagan to be elected. That’s when the Amerivan dream dies. Till then if an American worked hard and studied hard he or she got on in life. That is no longer true. USA’s GINI coefficient has slipped to 93rd in the world, below both Iran and Russia.

And if you want proof of wealth redistribution in action, take a look at this graph.

http://tinyurl.com/bq5jj3c

**

“You lack the basic ability to reason, and merely regurgitate the lies you hear from your betters.”

Notice how quickly a conservative will resort to ad hom attacks when he realizes the debate isn’t going his way?

The Purple Cow said...

Your latest lies and idiocies dealt with one-by-one

“Oh, and Hitler was a socialist. Nazi means "National Socialist". Don't take my word for it, here's Adolf himself:”

Well not quite dear boy, it is short for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.”

You will note that the date of that speech was very early o in Hitler’s career – 1927. That’s sigjnnificant, because as Hitler pointed out in Mein Kampf (I’m sure you have a cope on your bookshelf) Hitler chose the word nationalsozialistische to “inflame the Reds” and also to sew confusion amongst the disgruntled population so that the NSDA might profit from the popularity of far-left politics in German at that time. So by Hitler’s own words this was a giant snow job.

**

“He was also an ardent anti-Christian, just like you:”

No he wasn’t - Hitler told different audiences different things depending on what he thought they wanted to here.

He also said this

”We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

…and this…


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”


The Purple Cow said...

Your latest lies and idiocies dealt with one-by-one

“Oh, and Hitler was a socialist. Nazi means "National Socialist". Don't take my word for it, here's Adolf himself:”

Well not quite dear boy, it is short for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.”

You will note that the date of that speech was very early o in Hitler’s career – 1927. That’s sigjnnificant, because as Hitler pointed out in Mein Kampf (I’m sure you have a cope on your bookshelf) Hitler chose the word nationalsozialistische to “inflame the Reds” and also to sew confusion amongst the disgruntled population so that the NSDA might profit from the popularity of far-left politics in German at that time. So by Hitler’s own words this was a giant snow job.

**

“He was also an ardent anti-Christian, just like you:”

No he wasn’t - Hitler told different audiences different things depending on what he thought they wanted to here.

He also said this

”We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

…and this…


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

The Purple Cow said...

Oh and Blue Plate, I will ask you again. are you actually Dave Blount, or are you a cheap disingenuous little plagiariser who steals his words without attribution?

If you refuse to answer my question for a third time, I'll be forced to presume it's the latter.

field negro said...

PC, where did Blue Plate go? I was starting to enjoy this.:)

PilotX said...

"Strict prohibition of religious expression"????
You mean the hundreds of religious programming on television stations or the hundreds of religiously orientated radio stations? How about the thousands of churches across the country? Or maybe the prayer breakfast attended by our commander in chief?
I know conservatives like to play the oppressed victim card but other than Fox News' war on Christmas no rational person believes there is religious prohibition in this country. Ask any European or Australian how religious the U.S. Is.

white rabbit said...

Blogger The Purple Cow said...
>No he wasn’t - Hitler told different audiences different things depending on what he thought they wanted to hear.<


You are right about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKDeyuM0-Og

MatanzasGV said...

Good morn

i am not anti abortion, i am a defense atty, and i accept that since man made laws are in place that it is my job as an atty to make sure a client gets the best i have

Also regardless of whether a person i is guilty of the crime he or she is being tried for, or wrongly accused, my job or any attorney's job does not change.

i know that i must make the prosecution prove its case with valid arguments, proof positive evidence, and unbreakable testimony.

Bottom line , the case presented isn't merely about the client but the honor and rectitude, equality,and democracy of the justice system.

There in Philly, the evidence presented is being couched in pity and the pics of the aborted babies in question. And from my position that evidence does not rule out other suspects.

Ortro ves > lol bottom line, the Dr and his very talented defense atty has to make the prosecution prove its case.

Where i may disagree i am on the side of justice not just us or them
The women have the right to choose, what they did not know was how! Did it really happen like the pros , claims, did the mothers see the end photos? If so its prejudiced

That is any defense attys job to discover..The pity and the pics of the aborted babies(if presented) must not play a part We shall see!

Just saying