.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lemme start this with a bit of news:
A petition is going around asking that Michael Vick be banned from the Jets spring training. Full disclaimer - I do not care about professional sports at all. All I know of MV is that he plays pro football (not sure what position) and served time for dog fighting.
So my questions:
1) At what point do we forgive?
2) At what point do we say a person has been punished enough?
3) At what point do we allow a person charged with, convicted of and punished for wrongdoing to move on with his life?
SOME ANSWERS
On Question 1, some people will say never. Why?
Wikipedia gives the following definition for forgiveness: Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as
wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as
responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of
society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offence
from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship).
Forgiving, to me, means moving on. It means you are not going to carry a burden someone else placed on you. Dunno about you, but I have enough to worry about just in what I do. I do not need the unnecessary burden of dwelling on what someone did to me.
If you can't forgive, it means you will go to your grave resenting what someone else did. Don't know about you, but I don't need hate in my life. It sours everything else I try to be and want to do.
Just briefly and only briefly, every major in the world today lists forgiving others as a central tenet of belief. For my Christian/Muslim/Jewish friends, I point out you cannot be a Christian/Muslim/Jewish if you cannot forgive, no matter what the offense.
On Question 2, I suppose an answer could be "there is no punishment sufficient."
Not even death? Not even a painful drawn-out and lingering death? Not even making the person spend the rest of his life in prison?
I point out to you a dead person is incapable of affecting the living, as best we know. If you continue to not forgive a dead person, then you are just affecting yourself. See above.
If a person has paid his fine, served his time, given the restitution as required and met your other requirements for punishment, then I suggest you are required to forgive. If not, then you are breaking your promise.
The other person now has a justifiable case against you.
That's a neat segue into Question 3.
If a person has done everything humanly possible, then who are you to say more is needed? What gives you the right to demand more when nothing more can be offered?
Lemme close with this:
If someone could gather irrefutable evidence of everything you've done wrong and present that to a judge, where would you be today? Would you ask forgiveness? Have you ever been forgiven? Have you ever granted forgiveness? Have you ever asked to be forgiven and had that request rejected?
If you did everything you could to make things right and someone said "I cannot forgive you," how would you feel?
Just some thoughts on a Thursday morning.
The views in this blog are not those of people who can't think for themselves and rely on others to think for them. For that matter, the views expressed here may not be those of people who CAN think for themselves, but it comes extremely close.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Swing anna miss!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The case of the New Mexico photographer and the same-gender couple and who has what right was not heard by the Supreme Court.
So. Under the New Mexico law, this photographer can be forced to take pictures of weddings.
This. Is. Wrong. Fortunately, more cases are working their way up the system.
Photography is a defined, court-approved and common-law declared First Amendment right. SCOTUS settled this one in the Zapruder film case. Zapruder is the gent who filmed JFK's assassination. Scotus ruled in part, Mr. Z and his work were protected by the First Amendment. Photography is protected under US and international copyright law. It is free speech.
The flip side of free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. In other words, you can't be shut up AND you cannot be forced to say something.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE
In the HuffPo article, an attorney is quoted.
"Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said 'no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.'"
Not true.
In fact, turning away customers on a discriminatory basis is codified in a number of laws. Here's a recent court case. Tobacco products may not be advertised in publications aimed at kids. Further, newspapers do have the right to refuse to sell advertising to businesses, people and etc. "While magazines, newspapers and other media outlets routinely decline to sell advertising space to competitors, magazines and newspapers do not generally operate under government-granted franchises."
This is speech. It comes under the First Amendment.
Does the couple in question have the right to get married? Yes. Their relationship is none of my business, none of your business and absolutely none of government's business.
Does the couple have a right to have their wedding announcement published in their local newspaper? Nope. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press. You don't like it, buy your own press and start your own newspaper. More power to you. Me? I'd run it.
Does the photographer, as an artist, have the right to choose what to photograph? As photography is a protected First Amendment right, the answer is yes.
Does the photographer have the right to refuse to provide a commercial service to anyone she (in this case) chooses? I say yes. Some people say no.
Lemme ask you this: Whose rights are more important? The couple getting married OR the photographer? Careful how you answer as I reserve the right to take your answer and beat you bloody with it.
The correct answer is: Their rights are equal to start with. The couple has the right to get married. The photog has the right to not take pictures of the wedding.
However, the wedding photog has the right to say no to the request to take pictures. Wedding photos are not an essential matter like food, water, air and swearing at politicians. The couple has the right to boycott the photographer and state their case in public. They have the right to ask other people to boycott the photographer.
The public has the right to decide if the photographer should stay in business or close up show by spending money with that photog or with competitors. It's none of government's business.
SOME QUESTIONS
ACW stated, in partial response to MM, I agree. And why in the hell would you want to hire some on that CLEARLY doesn't want to do the work for whatever the reason?
Another excellent question. I don't have a solid answer (and the question may have been rhetorical). I can tell you if I, as a wedding photog (which I used to do) was forced to take wedding pictures, they'd be horrible and the price would be astronomical. For the record, I generally don't do wedding photography any more, except in very special cases, because it drives me insane. I officiate weddings and will do so for couples, trios, quads, etc. regardless of gender.
DISCRIMINATION
Some people are gonna draw parallels here between segregation and gay rights. They are partly right. Where discrimination is embedded in the law, it's generally wrong. Generally. Are some exceptions, to wit an egregious example: A 5 year old should not be allowed to have a commercial driver's license.
Where discrimination exist in business, a different matter. When a company chooses to discriminate for whatever reason, I support the right to do so. It's not government's business who gets to sit at the lunch counter. It. Is. Not.
At the same time, I give the same amount of support to the people protesting this. Bring economic and social pressures to bear, not legal forces, to make changes.
If the restaurant won't let some people sit at the counter, spread the word. Start protesting. When enough social and economic force is brought to bear, the business will change or close its doors.
That, ladies and gents, preserves everyone's rights equally.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The case of the New Mexico photographer and the same-gender couple and who has what right was not heard by the Supreme Court.
So. Under the New Mexico law, this photographer can be forced to take pictures of weddings.
This. Is. Wrong. Fortunately, more cases are working their way up the system.
Photography is a defined, court-approved and common-law declared First Amendment right. SCOTUS settled this one in the Zapruder film case. Zapruder is the gent who filmed JFK's assassination. Scotus ruled in part, Mr. Z and his work were protected by the First Amendment. Photography is protected under US and international copyright law. It is free speech.
The flip side of free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. In other words, you can't be shut up AND you cannot be forced to say something.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE
In the HuffPo article, an attorney is quoted.
"Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said 'no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.'"
Not true.
In fact, turning away customers on a discriminatory basis is codified in a number of laws. Here's a recent court case. Tobacco products may not be advertised in publications aimed at kids. Further, newspapers do have the right to refuse to sell advertising to businesses, people and etc. "While magazines, newspapers and other media outlets routinely decline to sell advertising space to competitors, magazines and newspapers do not generally operate under government-granted franchises."
This is speech. It comes under the First Amendment.
RIGHTS AND LEFTS
Does the couple in question have the right to get married? Yes. Their relationship is none of my business, none of your business and absolutely none of government's business.
Does the couple have a right to have their wedding announcement published in their local newspaper? Nope. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press. You don't like it, buy your own press and start your own newspaper. More power to you. Me? I'd run it.
Does the photographer, as an artist, have the right to choose what to photograph? As photography is a protected First Amendment right, the answer is yes.
Does the photographer have the right to refuse to provide a commercial service to anyone she (in this case) chooses? I say yes. Some people say no.
Lemme ask you this: Whose rights are more important? The couple getting married OR the photographer? Careful how you answer as I reserve the right to take your answer and beat you bloody with it.
The correct answer is: Their rights are equal to start with. The couple has the right to get married. The photog has the right to not take pictures of the wedding.
However, the wedding photog has the right to say no to the request to take pictures. Wedding photos are not an essential matter like food, water, air and swearing at politicians. The couple has the right to boycott the photographer and state their case in public. They have the right to ask other people to boycott the photographer.
The public has the right to decide if the photographer should stay in business or close up show by spending money with that photog or with competitors. It's none of government's business.
SOME QUESTIONS
MM asked: Why
is it that the fight over rights almost always turns into a removal of
rights for one and an affirmation of rights for another. Why don't we
realize that both have rights?
Indeed so. One person's rights were trampled while another's were given a superior position. This is wrong.
Another excellent question. I don't have a solid answer (and the question may have been rhetorical). I can tell you if I, as a wedding photog (which I used to do) was forced to take wedding pictures, they'd be horrible and the price would be astronomical. For the record, I generally don't do wedding photography any more, except in very special cases, because it drives me insane. I officiate weddings and will do so for couples, trios, quads, etc. regardless of gender.
Some people are gonna draw parallels here between segregation and gay rights. They are partly right. Where discrimination is embedded in the law, it's generally wrong. Generally. Are some exceptions, to wit an egregious example: A 5 year old should not be allowed to have a commercial driver's license.
Where discrimination exist in business, a different matter. When a company chooses to discriminate for whatever reason, I support the right to do so. It's not government's business who gets to sit at the lunch counter. It. Is. Not.
At the same time, I give the same amount of support to the people protesting this. Bring economic and social pressures to bear, not legal forces, to make changes.
If the restaurant won't let some people sit at the counter, spread the word. Start protesting. When enough social and economic force is brought to bear, the business will change or close its doors.
That, ladies and gents, preserves everyone's rights equally.
Friday, April 4, 2014
As expected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Back in 2012 a reporter for STERN Magazine contacted me and asked if I'd agree to to an interview about firearms. I did.
How'd she find me? Yahoo hired me to write a piece on gun ownership and she found that article.
It resulted in a day long session with the reporter and a photographer. He shot several hundred pictures of me, the kids, the reporter. Shot a few of the whole family.
The one which was published, in front of the old service station at the north edge of Sycamore, has been picked up by Slate magazine and at least one blogger. As of this blog, I'd skimmed all the SLATE comments, sent in a correction for the cutline, replied to a few comments and grinned madly.
As expected, a sizeable number of the comments were hate-filled, some attacked us for our appearance and more than a few said it appears we're in the bad end of the gene pool.
As expected. Really. I knew the interview would bring out the hate (and it sure did in Germany!) and folks would pile it on. I expect more hate. I expect a lot more personal attacks. But these people are far superior to me and vastly more intelligent than I am. (Canya feel the sarcasm?)
They can see one posed image with an incorrect cutline and determine who I am, what kind of person I am, that I am a clear and present danger to everyone (and they do mean everyone) and that I should be locked up because of all these character determinations based on one picture. And I note, I'm doing the exact same thing to them, making judgments about them based on a single comment.
[shrugs]
Given the attacks (none so far has reached me directly but I expect this to happen) some might wonder why I did this.
Because I had to. I had to show the First Amendment. I had to show the Second Amendment. I had to illustrate that I live both. People needed to see this.
Because most people will snap judge and move on without any further thought. But a few will stop, think and come up with well-reasoned discussions. Their discussions hopefully will reach a few more people and cause more thought.
Because someone needs to stand up.
Because I'm trying to lead a person to think.
Call me the new Sisyphus. Call me Don Quixote if you wish. I'm good with that. If you'll excuse me, I need to find Pancho so we can saddle up and ride.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Back in 2012 a reporter for STERN Magazine contacted me and asked if I'd agree to to an interview about firearms. I did.
How'd she find me? Yahoo hired me to write a piece on gun ownership and she found that article.
It resulted in a day long session with the reporter and a photographer. He shot several hundred pictures of me, the kids, the reporter. Shot a few of the whole family.
The one which was published, in front of the old service station at the north edge of Sycamore, has been picked up by Slate magazine and at least one blogger. As of this blog, I'd skimmed all the SLATE comments, sent in a correction for the cutline, replied to a few comments and grinned madly.
As expected, a sizeable number of the comments were hate-filled, some attacked us for our appearance and more than a few said it appears we're in the bad end of the gene pool.
As expected. Really. I knew the interview would bring out the hate (and it sure did in Germany!) and folks would pile it on. I expect more hate. I expect a lot more personal attacks. But these people are far superior to me and vastly more intelligent than I am. (Canya feel the sarcasm?)
They can see one posed image with an incorrect cutline and determine who I am, what kind of person I am, that I am a clear and present danger to everyone (and they do mean everyone) and that I should be locked up because of all these character determinations based on one picture. And I note, I'm doing the exact same thing to them, making judgments about them based on a single comment.
[shrugs]
Given the attacks (none so far has reached me directly but I expect this to happen) some might wonder why I did this.
Because I had to. I had to show the First Amendment. I had to show the Second Amendment. I had to illustrate that I live both. People needed to see this.
Because most people will snap judge and move on without any further thought. But a few will stop, think and come up with well-reasoned discussions. Their discussions hopefully will reach a few more people and cause more thought.
Because someone needs to stand up.
Because I'm trying to lead a person to think.
Call me the new Sisyphus. Call me Don Quixote if you wish. I'm good with that. If you'll excuse me, I need to find Pancho so we can saddle up and ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)