Author Topic: Don't Hold Juvenile Activity Against People - Minorities and Professionals  (Read 251 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
    The
Ban the Box Campaign is an effort to ensure the inclusion of people who had earlier, youthful offenses in society. Below is the "Fair Chance Pledge" that supporters take:

Quote
As an individual, I pledge…

To always welcome formerly incarcerated peoples into my community

To support changes in policies that discriminate against the formerly incarcerated

As an employer, I pledge…

To hire and support the formerly incarcerated

To support the elimination of any restrictions on participation that may exclude the formerly incarcerated

To encourage others to also institute fair hiring practices


This is unabashedly liberal and salutary. What someone does as a youngster should not live with them forever.

For example I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:

  • When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;
  • In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. "Charlie" reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;
    • In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;
    • In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an "F";
      • In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;
      • In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and
        • Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.

        More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job?

        Most liberals would support "ban the box" and second chances. Lately that has become "situational."
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 10:02:50 am by JBG »
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
Quote
What someone does as a youngster should not live with them forever.

What f it was raping, or attempting to rape, someone? 

Do you equate your listed shortcomings with that?   How long should attempted rape disqualify someone to be a judge on the Supreme Court (for instance)?


Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
What f it was raping, or attempting to rape, someone? 

Do you equate your listed shortcomings with that?   How long should attempted rape disqualify someone to be a judge on the Supreme Court (for instance)?
I didn't bring up Kavanaugh. You did.

But where's the evidence?
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8081
I didn't bring up Kavanaugh. You did.

But where's the evidence?

Let's see what teh FBI comes up with.

In any case someone who cries and snivells and blabs on about how much he likes beer doesn't look to me like someone you want on the high court.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 08:30:16 pm by Omni »

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Location: Kim City BC
I didn't bring up Kavanaugh. You did.

Yeah, well, your post seems to hint at a certain intent.

But where's the evidence?

To put Kavanaugh in jail we'd need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But we're not talking about putting him in jail, we're talking about giving him a lifetime appointment to one of the most prestigious jobs in the United States.

One would hope that the bar for Supreme Court nominees is set just a little higher than "not proven to be a sex predator".


And surely not all "youthful transgressions" are equal.  I'd suggest that there's quite a leap from stealing a 12 cent ice cream bar in 4th grade to committing sexual assault as a high school senior.

And, leaving aside the question of whether he assaulted a girl as a 17 year old... we've seen his dishonest testimony and his work history, and that's enough to know that he doesn't deserve the job.  Maybe he should just stay at his current job, or become a legal analyst on Fox News. He'd probably be a big hit there.

This whole process would have gone much smoother if they had found another nominee of Neil Gorsuch's calibre.   I'm sure the Democrats would have loved to have taken down Mr Gorsuch too... but aside from being angry about his conservative politics, they couldn't find anything to attack him with.  He was unassailable-- as one would hope for in a candidate for a job where integrity and character are paramount.   After seeing Kavanaugh's testimony this past month, and especially last Thursday, integrity and character are not two words that come to mind.  There are plenty of other conservative judges they could look at... why are they so hung up on this particular one?

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
Let's see what teh FBI comes up with.

In any case someone who cries and snivells and blabs on about how much he likes beer doesn't look to me like someone you want on the high court.
He was giving an honest picture of his life as an adolescent in high school and a near-adolescent in college. The centerpiece of the Jewish religion is the process of atonement for sins and forgiveness. See generally, on atonement, Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement - Judaism 101.

But forgiveness by the victim is a somewhat different issue. In a link on Interpersonal Relationships (link), the writer posits, I think correctly, that as a general matter a victim must forgive in order to receive absolution from his own sins:
Quote from: torah.org
The Mishna in Yoma is telling us that before one can be forgiven for a sin committed against another person, such as embarrassing the person, stealing from the person , etc., the “victim” must forgive the person who committed the act against him. Only then will Hashem forgive the person for the disregard of His commands.



*****************

We must remember as we approach Yom Kippur that in order to acheive atonement, we must ask all those who we have harmed for forgiveness. In order to truly repent, we must make a firm comittment to “be nice” to our neighbor – to be sensative to others’ needs and situations, and act accordingly, in a way that will not necessitate a visit before the next Yom Kippur to ask for forgiveness.
The point being that long-ago transgressions, even if they actually happened (which is in doubt here) should not be a factor if the person has no recent behavior of this kind.
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us

Offline Bubbermiley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
In the law, judges are held in high regard and it's preferred they don't lie under oath about stupid things like what devil's triangle or Renate alumnus means, or whether they remember their youthful transgressions. In the United States, the Supreme Court is the highest court, and people who lie under oath should never be appointed there.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
    The
Ban the Box Campaign is an effort to ensure the inclusion of people who had earlier, youthful offenses in society. Below is the "Fair Chance Pledge" that supporters take:

This is unabashedly liberal and salutary. What someone does as a youngster should not live with them forever.

For example I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:
(list of minor problems deleted for space)
Whether someone's past offenses should count against them depends on a few factors:

- The type of crime (murder is certainly more significant than shoplifting and the amount of 'inclusion' a society should extend will differ accordingly. (Since this issue is semi-related to Kavanaugh, I'd say that attempted rape probably sits closer to the less-forgivable end of the spectrum)

- What exactly 'inclusion' means. Allow the person to work at your local Burger house? Sure, why not. Have them appointed to one of the most powerful positions in the free world? A bit less inclusion might be warranted here

- Whether the individual seems to have acknowledged their failings. If, for example, Kavanaugh had admitted "Yeah I definitely drank to much and acted like a real jerk to women. But I'm a better person now" then perhaps his transgressions might potentially be overlooked. On the other hand, when you attempt to minimize your past, even lying about it, then the "past offenses" are no longer in the past... they are current and ongoing, as the cover up is now part of the crime.

[/list]
Like Like x 2 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
Not Within Civil Discourse
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2018, 08:42:13 pm »
Is this "professor" educating students? Who would pay $50,000 a year for this? First the professor's background:
Quote
C. Christine Fair is a Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She previously served as a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation, a political officer with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan in Kabul, and a senior research associate at USIP’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention.
Source-Georgetown Website

This is a sampling of one of her tweets, indeed one of the few that didn't use filtered words not acceptable under the Terms of Service.Link to Tweet
Quote from: Carol Christine Fair
(((Christine Fair)))
‏Verified account @CChristineFair

(((Christine Fair))) Retweeted Josh Marshall

Look at thus chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement.
All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.
Is this even within the realm of civil discourse?
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
Re: Not Within Civil Discourse
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2018, 10:21:03 pm »
Is this "professor" educating students? Who would pay $50,000 a year for this? First the professor's background:Source-Georgetown Website

This is a sampling of one of her tweets, indeed one of the few that didn't use filtered words not acceptable under the Terms of Service.Link to Tweet Is this even within the realm of civil discourse?

What does this have to do with the topic you started???   ::)

Offline Bubbermiley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
I think he's arguing that her juvenile activity shouldn't be held against her, but it's hard to say for sure.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Location: Kim City BC
He was giving an honest picture of his life as an adolescent in high school and a near-adolescent in college. The centerpiece of the Jewish religion is the process of atonement for sins and forgiveness. See generally, on atonement, Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement - Judaism 101.

But forgiveness by the victim is a somewhat different issue. In a link on Interpersonal Relationships (link), the writer posits, I think correctly, that as a general matter a victim must forgive in order to receive absolution from his own sins:

Of all the rationalizations for putting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court I've heard, the suggestion that it will help Mrs Blasey-Ford get to heaven is undoubtedly the most novel.

The point being that long-ago transgressions, even if they actually happened (which is in doubt here) should not be a factor if the person has no recent behavior of this kind.

I have some follow-up questions:

 -if we're ranking transgressions in terms of severity, where does lying to senators under oath fall? Is that closer to the 12 cent ice cream bar end of the scale, or closer to the sexual assault end of the scale?

 -does last month still count as long-ago?

 -does 53 years old count as youthful?


 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Location: Kim City BC
He was giving an honest picture of his life as an adolescent in high school and a near-adolescent in college.

I forgot that I also wanted to highlight the use of the word "adolescent" here.  I once called out the waldo for an equally elastic use of the word in excusing the conduct of migrants, and I would be remiss in not mentioning it again here.

Nobody really uses the word "adolescent" to describe someone in their late teens or older. And if we were discussing a common street criminal instead of a privileged young man, I'm sure that instead of "an adolescent in high school and a near adolescent in college" you'd be discussing a "near adult in high-school and an adult in college".  This "but he was just a boy" sympathy only extends to people we're already inclined to be sympathetic to.  We regularly hear of efforts to have 17 year olds tried as adults. I've never heard of an effort to have a college student tried as a juvenile.

By the time you're 17 years old you already have a fully functional understanding of right and wrong.

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
He was giving an honest picture of his life as an adolescent in high school and a near-adolescent in college.
That's the issue... many people don't think he was giving an 'honest picture of HIS life as an adolescent'. His... "unusual" (i.e. nobody else in the world uses them) definitions... for example the 'Renate Alumnus' or 'Devils Triangle' description. His attempts to minimize his alcohol consumption and its effects on him (multiple witnesses have described him as a rather 'mean drunk', which he conveniently never mentioned. Just that he "liked beer").
Quote
The centerpiece of the Jewish religion is the process of atonement...
To 'atone' he has to admit there was an issue.

If he issued a statement saying "when I was younger I drank too much and acted badly, and I apologize. I am a better person now" then its possible that he really is interested in atonement. But instead he went on the warpath... suggesting there was some sort of Clinton conspiracy, attacking the senators that were questioning him. That's not the attitude for someone seeking 'atonement'. That's someone who was a jerk in the past, and who is still a jerk.

Heck, if nothing else, the Clinton Conspiracy claims he made during the hearing should disqualify him, since it would call his ability to remain impartial into question.

Quote
But forgiveness by the victim is a somewhat different issue. In a link on Interpersonal Relationships (link), the writer posits, I think correctly, that as a general matter a victim must forgive in order to receive absolution from his own sins:
Which would only be relevant if 1) there was a god, and 2) that god actually subscribe to the same ideas.

There is more evidence that Ford is telling the truth and that Kavanaugh is lying than there is for your god.

Quote
The point being that long-ago transgressions, even if they actually happened (which is in doubt here) should not be a factor if the person has no recent behavior of this kind.
Once again....

- Whether a past transgression should be a factor depends on the type of transgression and just what the potential 'job' is

- Its all irrelevant because Kavanaugh's failure to own up to his mistakes and his probable lies/cover ups mean that his transgressions are not 'long ago'... they are part of his current personality.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
Since this thread has become a sort of "Kavanaugh confirmation" thread (either by design or accident), I thought this was rather significant.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4501767/halifax-artist-kavanaugh-cartoon/

Its about a (now famous) cartoon, showing 'lady justice' being held down with a hand over her mouth, by assailants that are unseen but who are wearing Republican cufflinks.

Personally I think its a perfect cartoon... it both reflects some of the details of the Ford assault claim, and highlights both the assault on justice, and Republican efforts to stifle investigations into the incident (failure to call additional witnesses or to get the FBI involved until forced to by Flake.)