MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Another Republican Makes The Case (By Mistake) For Obama

Be Sociable, Share!

12 Responses to “Another Republican Makes The Case (By Mistake) For Obama”

  1. RDP says:

    The law is reason unaffected by desire.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, Bond is basically correct here, aside from the inherent homophobia and racism. A courtroom is a place for objectivity and decisions based on the equal application of the law. I have an aunt who served as a judge and while she has stories of hearing cases that would tear your heart out, the nature of the job is such that one is constrained by specific legal limits.

  3. David Poland says:

    Again… a fact that Obama agrees with. (It is a fact that I agree with and have argued for years.) The law is the law and laws that are constitutional are inflexible by design.
    So Bond is 100% wrong about Obama’s position on that.
    But the other reality is that our courts are not without compassion, sympathy, outrage or anger. “Judges who have a heart,” not judges who change the law because they have a heart.
    Don’t get caught up in the blur that this Senator did. We must want sympathtic, compassionate people in the system. People are innocent until found guilty. People are going through a system. And someone who mocks a generous spirit from the powerful is someone who doesn’t understand being weak.
    This is the the inherent (intentional) misunderstanding between the iconic Republican vs the iconic Democrat… it’s not asking for a handout or a way around the law or something that others don’t get. It’s seeking equality and compassion from the machine.
    But all of that is arguable. What is not really arguable is that this speech is not about legal issues, but about separating these groups – the handicapped? really? – as somehow not worthy of compassion or sympathy because they are somehow, by way of Obama, demanding what is not due them.
    It’s hate speech.

  4. RDP says:

    “it’s not asking for a handout or a way around the law or something that others don’t get.”
    I don’t know. You see something like what happened in Durham, North Carolina and you start to think that maybe that’s not the case.
    I agree that the rules of law should be followed in such a way that results in the proper and fair outcome. The “throwing the book at them” mentality has very often backfired, resulting in a number of people who would probably be better served (and society would be better served) in other programs being sent to prison for long, sometimes outrageous, sentences.
    There are also programs that judges can currently take advantage of that probably result in a better return to society than prison time does, and it’s a shame that more judges don’t take advantage of those programs.
    I guess I wouldn’t think of that as being sympathetic, though. I’d look at that as looking at the situation and doing what’s best for society as a whole. It doesn’t serve anyone to imprison someone who would be better served without prison. It doesn’t serve anyone to presume guilt prior to guilt or innocence being determined.
    And just as there are plenty of law and order types on the Republican side of the aisle who twist the law for political gain (by being “tough on crime” or what-have-you), there are those on the other side of the aisle who seek to twist the law for political gain, as well (by rigging the system in order to try to send people who committed no crime to prison for life).
    Personally, I’d prefer no one twist the law at all, regardless of their motives.

  5. RDP says:

    I would note, too, that it was sympathy that got Dustin Camp probation for murdering someone for being different.
    Hey, he was a high school kid. Kids make mistakes. There was a fight. He’s a good-looking boy who played football and that guy he killed had a mohawk which obviously means he was up to no good.
    That whole purposely driving over him with his Cadillac was just a brief lapse in judgment. Let’s buy him a present.
    (I’m paraphrasing, but only slightly, the sympathetic views of those involved with the case).

  6. Josh Massey says:

    “It’s seeking equality and compassion from the machine.”
    Equality and compassion don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.
    If you treating somebody different because you’re compassionate to their situation, you’re very clearly fostering inequality. The law is designed to be objective to all of us, providing true equality.

  7. David Poland says:

    I am repeating myself, but Obama said that the Warren court would have been radical had it been an activist court, reaching beyond the law itself.
    The law is the law.
    But we, as a nation of laws, must still be a nation of compassion… not having judges change law on a David E Kelley whim because of either compassion or anger… but to hear people arguing against compassion in general… not for me…

  8. jeffmcm says:

    “If you treating somebody different because you’re compassionate to their situation, you’re very clearly fostering inequality.”
    UNLESS you are counteracting a pre-existing inequality.

  9. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Speaking of pre-existing inequality, the Prop 8 battle in Cali brings us one of those world-class losers. He wouldn’t have been charged except he got picked up on a warrant.

  10. Josh Massey says:

    “UNLESS you are counteracting a pre-existing inequality.”
    Well, if you are doing so, you are using the laws to make things equal. Compassion should really play no part in that as far as upholding the law goes. Feeling it is a human trait is unavoidable, of course, but it shouldn’t play a part in the process.
    It is mostly politicians that use the law to treat citizens subjectively, and that is a major reason we’re in such a fractured partisan state today.

  11. mysteryperfecta says:

    “Let’s get past the part where Bond completle misstates what Obama said in that 2001 PBS radio conversation as a matter of fact, not interpretation.”
    Let’s not get past the part where you’ve incorrectly identified the source of Obama’s quote. :p It wasn’t a quote from the radio interview, it was from a speech he gave to Planned Parenthood in July of 2007.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    “Well, if you are doing so, you are using the laws to make things equal. Compassion should really play no part in that as far as upholding the law goes.”
    And that’s where we differ, in terms of policy goals, as the case may be, of course.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon