Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Novara
Novara's Journal
Novara's Journal
April 16, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s entry into the race for the presidency has goosed the egos of some conservative ganders.
Wayne LaPierre, the C.E.O. and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, on the eve of Clinton’s announcement said of President Obama at the group’s annual meeting, “when he’s finished, he intends to go out with the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” There were boos. LaPierre continued: “Yeah, I have to tell you, eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough.” There were cheers.
Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday. With the words “HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT” in yellow and all-caps next to his face, he bemoaned the idea that “our traditional American values are under siege nearly everywhere,” and then added: “If you’re a Christian or a white man in the U.S.A., it’s open season on you. Therefore, Hillary Clinton has an advantage.”
<snip>
And yet, this faux oppression makes a mockery of very real oppression. Aside from the hilarity of the incongruous spectacle of two incredibly powerful white men grousing about the lowly plight of white men in general is the utter ridiculousness of the idea itself.
And unfortunately, this isn’t a new idea, but the resurrection — or elongation — of an existing one.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html
Woe of White Men, Again?
Woe of White Men, Again? - Charles M. BlowHillary Clinton’s entry into the race for the presidency has goosed the egos of some conservative ganders.
Wayne LaPierre, the C.E.O. and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, on the eve of Clinton’s announcement said of President Obama at the group’s annual meeting, “when he’s finished, he intends to go out with the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” There were boos. LaPierre continued: “Yeah, I have to tell you, eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough.” There were cheers.
Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday. With the words “HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT” in yellow and all-caps next to his face, he bemoaned the idea that “our traditional American values are under siege nearly everywhere,” and then added: “If you’re a Christian or a white man in the U.S.A., it’s open season on you. Therefore, Hillary Clinton has an advantage.”
<snip>
And yet, this faux oppression makes a mockery of very real oppression. Aside from the hilarity of the incongruous spectacle of two incredibly powerful white men grousing about the lowly plight of white men in general is the utter ridiculousness of the idea itself.
And unfortunately, this isn’t a new idea, but the resurrection — or elongation — of an existing one.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html
April 16, 2015
While the American public focused on the controversial “religious freedom” bill passed in Indiana last month, two other states also made far-reaching and dangerous political moves: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson each signed legislation forcing doctors to tell women seeking medication-induced abortions that the process can be reversed once it has begun.
As doctors, we do not recommend a treatment until it’s been proven safe and effective. This legislature-supported treatment has not met these standards, so to be governmentally mandated to recommend it is deeply disturbing. Consequently, our organizations, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health, are speaking out against this reckless and dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.
Simply put, evidence and science must guide the care that patients receive in any area of medicine. When political agendas get in the way of that, patients suffer.
<snip>
Legislatures and governors would never presume to tell an oncologist which cancer chemotherapy to prescribe. They would never presume to tell a breast surgeon to do a lumpectomy rather than a mastectomy. They would never presume to tell an endocrinologist how to treat diabetes most effectively. They would never – in any other area of medicine – step into the exam room with a physician and a patient and force the physician to recommend an untested treatment.
And yet, this is what we see time and again when it comes to the physicians who provide women with the medical treatment needed to end a pregnancy. These politicians presume to know better. But they do not and never will.
So this is the current state of affairs: Legislatures are mandating that doctors in one area of medicine lie to their patients. We would not stand for this in any other area of medicine and we shouldn’t stand for it when it comes to abortion care.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-laws-force-doctors-lie-patients-about-abortion
New laws force doctors to lie to patients about abortion
New laws force doctors to lie to patients about abortionWhile the American public focused on the controversial “religious freedom” bill passed in Indiana last month, two other states also made far-reaching and dangerous political moves: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson each signed legislation forcing doctors to tell women seeking medication-induced abortions that the process can be reversed once it has begun.
As doctors, we do not recommend a treatment until it’s been proven safe and effective. This legislature-supported treatment has not met these standards, so to be governmentally mandated to recommend it is deeply disturbing. Consequently, our organizations, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health, are speaking out against this reckless and dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.
Simply put, evidence and science must guide the care that patients receive in any area of medicine. When political agendas get in the way of that, patients suffer.
<snip>
Legislatures and governors would never presume to tell an oncologist which cancer chemotherapy to prescribe. They would never presume to tell a breast surgeon to do a lumpectomy rather than a mastectomy. They would never presume to tell an endocrinologist how to treat diabetes most effectively. They would never – in any other area of medicine – step into the exam room with a physician and a patient and force the physician to recommend an untested treatment.
And yet, this is what we see time and again when it comes to the physicians who provide women with the medical treatment needed to end a pregnancy. These politicians presume to know better. But they do not and never will.
So this is the current state of affairs: Legislatures are mandating that doctors in one area of medicine lie to their patients. We would not stand for this in any other area of medicine and we shouldn’t stand for it when it comes to abortion care.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-laws-force-doctors-lie-patients-about-abortion
April 15, 2015
Last month, Republicans ruined a perfectly good bipartisan anti-sex trafficking bill by attaching amendments aimed at denying abortions to trafficking victims. After that debacle, you might have given up all hope for an across-the-aisle approach to reducing violence against women. But Annamarya Scaccia at RH Reality Check reports on a quiet but important bill, introduced by Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), that should appeal to victims' advocates and animal lovers alike. The bill is called the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act, and it would give grant money to domestic violence shelters to set up programs for victims who need to bring pets with them when they escape.
"Less than 5 percent of domestic violence shelters nationwide house pets," Scaccia reports, " ... but a real need exists for more: Research by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) shows between 18 and 48 percent of survivors delay vacating abusive situations because they fear their pet would be in danger if left behind."
As the ASPCA explains, men who beat women often beat and even kill those women's pets. In one study in Wisconsin, the ASPCA reports, "68 percent of battered women revealed that abusive partners had also been violent toward pets or livestock; more than three-quarters of these cases occurred in the presence of the women and/or children to intimidate and control them."
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/15/most_domestic_violence_shelters_don_t_take_pets_a_new_bill_can_help_change.html
Congress Considers Bill to Help Domestic Violence Victims Escape With Their Pets
Congress Considers Bill to Help Domestic Violence Victims Escape With Their Pets - SlateLast month, Republicans ruined a perfectly good bipartisan anti-sex trafficking bill by attaching amendments aimed at denying abortions to trafficking victims. After that debacle, you might have given up all hope for an across-the-aisle approach to reducing violence against women. But Annamarya Scaccia at RH Reality Check reports on a quiet but important bill, introduced by Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), that should appeal to victims' advocates and animal lovers alike. The bill is called the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act, and it would give grant money to domestic violence shelters to set up programs for victims who need to bring pets with them when they escape.
"Less than 5 percent of domestic violence shelters nationwide house pets," Scaccia reports, " ... but a real need exists for more: Research by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) shows between 18 and 48 percent of survivors delay vacating abusive situations because they fear their pet would be in danger if left behind."
As the ASPCA explains, men who beat women often beat and even kill those women's pets. In one study in Wisconsin, the ASPCA reports, "68 percent of battered women revealed that abusive partners had also been violent toward pets or livestock; more than three-quarters of these cases occurred in the presence of the women and/or children to intimidate and control them."
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/15/most_domestic_violence_shelters_don_t_take_pets_a_new_bill_can_help_change.html
April 15, 2015
THE DATA BELOW is the result of a joint investigation by Mother Jones and Ted Miller, an economist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Based on Miller's work identifying and quantifying the societal impacts of gun violence, the annual price tag comes to at least $229 billion a year (based on 2012 data). That includes $8.6 billion in direct spending—from emergency care and other medical expenses to court and prison costs—as well as $221 billion in less tangible "indirect" costs, which include impacts on productivity and quality of life for victims and their communities. (See the rest of our special investigation here.)
Charts are in the link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/charts-show-cost-price-gun-violence-america
16 Charts That Show the Shocking Cost of Gun Violence in America
16 Charts That Show the Shocking Cost of Gun Violence in America - Mother JonesTHE DATA BELOW is the result of a joint investigation by Mother Jones and Ted Miller, an economist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Based on Miller's work identifying and quantifying the societal impacts of gun violence, the annual price tag comes to at least $229 billion a year (based on 2012 data). That includes $8.6 billion in direct spending—from emergency care and other medical expenses to court and prison costs—as well as $221 billion in less tangible "indirect" costs, which include impacts on productivity and quality of life for victims and their communities. (See the rest of our special investigation here.)
Charts are in the link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/charts-show-cost-price-gun-violence-america
April 15, 2015
She’s no Obama. She’s not nearly as immediately likeable, captivating, hyper-articulate. She’s not a great orator, she doesn’t have much by way of magnetism or personal charisma (though she reportedly does have a terrific sense of humor), much less Obama’s famous, deeply reassuring/infuriating Zen-like calm.
She can’t hit a three-pointer from 25 feet out. She’s not a surprising unknown, an electrifying newcomer with a curious pedigree who might, just might, really shake things up in DC. While she’s as intelligent, experienced and politically savvy as they come, everyone knows all that experience comes with so much baggage and entrenched cronyism, not to mention a hawkish foreign policy, that her campaign already feels a little, well, heavy.
This is the bad news. And it’s just terribly easy to wallow in it, to be somewhat less than enthralled with Hillary’s second presidential bid, if for no other reason there’s just not much genuine spark there – nothing, aside from her gender and her inherent promise not to mess with Obama’s legacy overmuch, to truly inspire the Left and galvanize the ever-wary liberal youth. And that announcement video? About as captivating as an Allstate commercial. Is this what we’re in for?
But wait. That’s too easy. And not at all helpful.
There is simply no need to point out the aspects of the 2016 race that will be less exciting this time around. After all, it’s unlikely anyone in this lifetime will ever match Obama’s otherworldly 2008 run, which had the added thrill of yanking the World’s Worst President off the national stage, once and for all.
So what if she’s not a particularly compelling presence? So what if her policies are very much in line with Everything That Came Before? She’s the most unifying and potent force in the Democratic party. Her poll numbers are fantastic. She’s pro-choice, pro-science, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment (well, sort of), pro-women’s rights, pro-immigration reform and very much not an insane anti-science, anti-intellect Tea Party twitch-bot.
But even better than all of that – and this is, right now anyway, by far the best reason to be excited for her run – is the reaction of her enemies.
Which is to say: Totally. Freaked. Out.
Read more: http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2015/04/14/how-to-be-excited-about-hillary-clinton/
How to be excited about Hillary Clinton
How to be excited about Hillary Clinton - Mark Morford, SF GateShe’s no Obama. She’s not nearly as immediately likeable, captivating, hyper-articulate. She’s not a great orator, she doesn’t have much by way of magnetism or personal charisma (though she reportedly does have a terrific sense of humor), much less Obama’s famous, deeply reassuring/infuriating Zen-like calm.
She can’t hit a three-pointer from 25 feet out. She’s not a surprising unknown, an electrifying newcomer with a curious pedigree who might, just might, really shake things up in DC. While she’s as intelligent, experienced and politically savvy as they come, everyone knows all that experience comes with so much baggage and entrenched cronyism, not to mention a hawkish foreign policy, that her campaign already feels a little, well, heavy.
This is the bad news. And it’s just terribly easy to wallow in it, to be somewhat less than enthralled with Hillary’s second presidential bid, if for no other reason there’s just not much genuine spark there – nothing, aside from her gender and her inherent promise not to mess with Obama’s legacy overmuch, to truly inspire the Left and galvanize the ever-wary liberal youth. And that announcement video? About as captivating as an Allstate commercial. Is this what we’re in for?
But wait. That’s too easy. And not at all helpful.
There is simply no need to point out the aspects of the 2016 race that will be less exciting this time around. After all, it’s unlikely anyone in this lifetime will ever match Obama’s otherworldly 2008 run, which had the added thrill of yanking the World’s Worst President off the national stage, once and for all.
So what if she’s not a particularly compelling presence? So what if her policies are very much in line with Everything That Came Before? She’s the most unifying and potent force in the Democratic party. Her poll numbers are fantastic. She’s pro-choice, pro-science, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment (well, sort of), pro-women’s rights, pro-immigration reform and very much not an insane anti-science, anti-intellect Tea Party twitch-bot.
But even better than all of that – and this is, right now anyway, by far the best reason to be excited for her run – is the reaction of her enemies.
Which is to say: Totally. Freaked. Out.
Read more: http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2015/04/14/how-to-be-excited-about-hillary-clinton/
April 14, 2015
Four former Blackwater security guards were given lengthy sentences on Monday for the September 2007 shooting that left 14 Iraqis dead and more than 20 wounded, but many issues raised by the case are far from being resolved. A federal judge sentenced Nicholas Slatten, 31, who was convicted of murder, to life in prison for being the first to open fire in Baghdad's Nisour Square. His former colleagues, Paul Slough, 35, Evan Liberty, 32, and Dustin Heard, 33, were given 30-year sentences for multiple counts of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter.
Prior to sentencing, each insisted they were acting in self-defense in a war zone, where they were tasked with protecting U.S. interests. "I am very sorry for the loss of life," Heard said. "But I cannot say in all honesty to the court that I believe I did anything wrong." Slough added, "I know for a fact that I will be exonerated, in this life and the next."
At the time of the shooting, the men were trying to clear the way for U.S. diplomats. The defense argued that the the four-truck convoy fired machine guns and grenade launchers at unarmed Iraqis because they believed one of the cars in Nisour Square contained a bomb. The case became the prime example of the consequences of the U.S. government's reliance on private contractors. As more reports emerged of brazenly unlawful behavior by Blackwater employees, the company was sold and renamed several times and is now known as Academi.
District Court Judge Royce Lamberth agreed with the defendants' assessment, to some extent. He said he believed they were guilty, noting that there was no evidence or eyewitness testimony that suggested the men were under fire from insurgents. But he also said he was impressed by the "outpouring" of support from their friends and family, and got choked up at one point. "It is clear these fine young men just panicked," Lamberth said. "The overall, wild, thing that went on here can just not be condoned by a court ... A court has to recognize the severity of the crimes committed, including the number of victims."
Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/blackwater-guards-sentenced-for-killing-iraqis.html
Blackwater Guards Sentenced for Killing Iraqi Civilians, Still Insist They Did Nothing Wrong
Blackwater Guards Sentenced for Killing Iraqi Civilians, Still Insist They Did Nothing WrongFour former Blackwater security guards were given lengthy sentences on Monday for the September 2007 shooting that left 14 Iraqis dead and more than 20 wounded, but many issues raised by the case are far from being resolved. A federal judge sentenced Nicholas Slatten, 31, who was convicted of murder, to life in prison for being the first to open fire in Baghdad's Nisour Square. His former colleagues, Paul Slough, 35, Evan Liberty, 32, and Dustin Heard, 33, were given 30-year sentences for multiple counts of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter.
Prior to sentencing, each insisted they were acting in self-defense in a war zone, where they were tasked with protecting U.S. interests. "I am very sorry for the loss of life," Heard said. "But I cannot say in all honesty to the court that I believe I did anything wrong." Slough added, "I know for a fact that I will be exonerated, in this life and the next."
At the time of the shooting, the men were trying to clear the way for U.S. diplomats. The defense argued that the the four-truck convoy fired machine guns and grenade launchers at unarmed Iraqis because they believed one of the cars in Nisour Square contained a bomb. The case became the prime example of the consequences of the U.S. government's reliance on private contractors. As more reports emerged of brazenly unlawful behavior by Blackwater employees, the company was sold and renamed several times and is now known as Academi.
District Court Judge Royce Lamberth agreed with the defendants' assessment, to some extent. He said he believed they were guilty, noting that there was no evidence or eyewitness testimony that suggested the men were under fire from insurgents. But he also said he was impressed by the "outpouring" of support from their friends and family, and got choked up at one point. "It is clear these fine young men just panicked," Lamberth said. "The overall, wild, thing that went on here can just not be condoned by a court ... A court has to recognize the severity of the crimes committed, including the number of victims."
Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/blackwater-guards-sentenced-for-killing-iraqis.html
April 14, 2015
The FDA Just Released Scary New Data on Antibiotics And Farms
(I'm not sure if this belongs in a different place - please let me know if it does.)
The FDA Just Released Scary New Data on Antibiotics And Farms - Mother Jones
Back in April 2012, the Food and Drug Administration launched an effort to address a problem that had been festering for decades: the meat industry's habit of feeding livestock daily low does of antibiotics, which keeps animals alive under stressful conditions and may help them grow faster, but also generates bacterial pathogens that can shake off antibiotics, and make people sick.
The FDA approached the task gingerly: It asked the industry to voluntarily wean itself from routine use of "medically important" antibiotics—those that are critical to human medicine, like tetracycline. In addition to the light touch, the agency plan included a massive loophole: that while livestock producers could no longer use antibiotics as a growth promoter, they could use them to "prevent" disease—which often means using them in the same way (routinely) at the same rate. How's it working? Last week, the FDA delivered an early look, releasing data for 2013, the year after it rolled out its plan. The results are … scary.
[img]
[/img]
Note that use of medically important antibiotics actually grew 3 percent in 2013 compared to the previous year, while the industry's reliance on non-medically import drugs, which it's supposed to be shifting to, fell 2 percent. A longer view reveals an even mo4e worisome trend: between 2009 and 2013, use of medically important drugs on farm grew 20 percent. According to Natural Resources Defense Council's Avinash Kar, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics sold in the US go to farms. And the USDA date show that these livestock operations are particularly voracious for the same antibiotics doctors prescribe to people. Farms burn through 9.1 million kilograms of medically important antibiotics vs. 5.5 million kilograms of ones not currently used in human medicine. That means about 62 percent of their total antibiotic use could be be helping generate pathogens that resist the drugs we rely on.
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/04/meat-industrys-antibiotic-habit-still-voracious
April 14, 2015
A woman who had just tragically suffered a miscarriage was unable to get the medically necessary drugs her doctor ordered for her because the pharmacist at her local Walmart refused to fill it.
About five weeks into her pregnancy, Brittany Cartrett was told by her doctor that the child hadn’t made it. To avoid serious health consequences that may come with a miscarriage, she was given two options: an invasive “dilation and curettage” procedure which would surgically remove the contents of the uterus, or a pill that would have the same effect but would be less invasive. She opted for the second option.
Unfortunately, getting the medicine in order to treat herself proved difficult because of a Walmart pharmacist’s refusal to help her. Cartrett recounted her infuriating incident with Georgia news station WGXA (emphasis added):
Details in the link: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/
Walmart Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Prescription For Miscarriage Patient Citing ‘Conscience Clause’
Walmart Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Prescription For Miscarriage Patient Citing ‘Conscience Clause’ - Addicting InfoA woman who had just tragically suffered a miscarriage was unable to get the medically necessary drugs her doctor ordered for her because the pharmacist at her local Walmart refused to fill it.
About five weeks into her pregnancy, Brittany Cartrett was told by her doctor that the child hadn’t made it. To avoid serious health consequences that may come with a miscarriage, she was given two options: an invasive “dilation and curettage” procedure which would surgically remove the contents of the uterus, or a pill that would have the same effect but would be less invasive. She opted for the second option.
Unfortunately, getting the medicine in order to treat herself proved difficult because of a Walmart pharmacist’s refusal to help her. Cartrett recounted her infuriating incident with Georgia news station WGXA (emphasis added):
Details in the link: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/
April 13, 2015
- Mother Jones
That makes three: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has told donors that he will mount a presidential bid. He is scheduled to officially announce his candidacy Monday evening in Miami with a speech on the steps of the Freedom Tower, the historic landmark where the US government processed Cuban refugees in the 1960s.
The first-term Florida senator was considered one of his party's brightest rising stars until a doomed immigration reform push in 2013 eroded his support among conservatives. Rubio has since worked his way back to prominence, casting himself as a leading foreign policy hawk. His candidacy is not a surprise at this point, but it does set up a political soap opera, given that Rubio will be challenging another establishment-minded Florida Republican—Jeb Bush—who was once seen as Rubio's mentor. Bush's expected (official) entry into the race will likely diminish Rubio's chances.
Here are some of the best Mother Jones stories on Rubio.
-Meet the billionaire car dealer who could be Rubio's Sheldon Adelson.
-His presidential bid could revive interest in a number of past scandals—some of which have not been resolved.
-Rubio was once his party's leading advocate of immigration reform. Then he retreated.
-He used to believe in climate science. What happened?
-His ideas on how to beat ISIS are a little odd.
-Will Rubio be the candidate of Silicon Valley?
-Our original Rubio cheat sheet from 2012, when he was considered a potential Romney running mate.
Links to each story are in the main story.
Marco Rubio Is Running for President. Read These 7 Stories About Him Now.
Marco Rubio Is Running for President. Read These 7 Stories About Him Now.- Mother Jones
That makes three: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has told donors that he will mount a presidential bid. He is scheduled to officially announce his candidacy Monday evening in Miami with a speech on the steps of the Freedom Tower, the historic landmark where the US government processed Cuban refugees in the 1960s.
The first-term Florida senator was considered one of his party's brightest rising stars until a doomed immigration reform push in 2013 eroded his support among conservatives. Rubio has since worked his way back to prominence, casting himself as a leading foreign policy hawk. His candidacy is not a surprise at this point, but it does set up a political soap opera, given that Rubio will be challenging another establishment-minded Florida Republican—Jeb Bush—who was once seen as Rubio's mentor. Bush's expected (official) entry into the race will likely diminish Rubio's chances.
Here are some of the best Mother Jones stories on Rubio.
-Meet the billionaire car dealer who could be Rubio's Sheldon Adelson.
-His presidential bid could revive interest in a number of past scandals—some of which have not been resolved.
-Rubio was once his party's leading advocate of immigration reform. Then he retreated.
-He used to believe in climate science. What happened?
-His ideas on how to beat ISIS are a little odd.
-Will Rubio be the candidate of Silicon Valley?
-Our original Rubio cheat sheet from 2012, when he was considered a potential Romney running mate.
Links to each story are in the main story.
April 13, 2015
Walter Scott Is Not on Trial
From Charles M. Blow:
I not only watched television pundits discuss the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., last week, I participated in some of those discussions.
And the most disturbing thread that emerged for me was people who said up front that they saw no justification for Scott being killed, but nevertheless stalked around for a back door that would allow them to surreptitiously blame the victim for his own death. Some formulation of “if only he hadn’t run...” was the way this dark door was eased open.
I find it particularly disturbing the way that we try to find excuses for killings, the way that we seek to deprecate a person when they have been killed rather than insisting that they deserved to remain among the living.
For me, there is only one issue in the Walter Scott case: he is dead, and that cannot be undone. And not only was he killed, but he was killed in a most dishonorable way: shot in the back as he fled. So, for me there is only one question: Should the dead man be dead? Is there anything, under American jurisprudence and universal moral law, that justifies the taking of this man’s life?
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/charles-blow-walter-scott-is-not-on-trial.html
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 6,115