As Clytemnestra saw the beacon blaze forth beyond Argos, she knew that Troy was destroyed. In her mind she heard the sounds of the fall of Troy; the joy of the Greeks, safe, and homeward bound after ten years campaigning; and the Trojan women wailing for their husbands, lovers, and sons – all dead – their city in flames; their future, slavery. A cacophony of joy and pain which, like oil and water, would not mix.
Back in 1988 “my” High School had a winning football team. I’m not sure that was the last time – but it seems like it was. Be that as it may; that year’s homecoming game was against Bonneville High – the top rated team in the state. Both banks of bleachers were packed – the excitement mounted as the clock ran down with a tie score on the boards. In the overtime that followed, our team got the ball halfway down the field, only seconds on the clock. Our handsome kicker came out onto the field, barefoot, his long blond hair bushing out of his helmet. Amid defining screams the blares of trumpets and the roar of drums and cymbals he kicked the ball fifty yards down the field and through the uprights as the overtime gun cracked. That beautiful fall evening under the lights there was a soft breeze blowing and the grass was so green it hurt your eyes. We cheered and cheered and cheered, the band played, the team left the field but the cheerleaders stayed to dance. The band played on. For fifteen minutes not one Lancer left; the joy went on and on. At last the crowd broke and laughing and hugging we started for the field. It was then I looked across to the Bonneville side. There was no one there! The Bonneville fans had left the field – the emptiness of the stands spoke of their dismay more clearly than tears and lamentation
Today voices cry out in similar discord; winners and losers bellowing forth in sounds that will not mix. Today, twenty five thousand Lebanese stood in the streets of Beirut calling for freedom, “the fire that burns in dark places”, kindled by our heroes sacrifice and by the courage of a President who does what he says. Meanwhile on the floor of the US Senate, Robert Byrd rants about Hitler, condemning the rule of law. In the Holy Land, Israelis and Palestinians standing together against terror – hopeful at last, that murderers can be faced down and sovereignty returned to the hands of the people. Their hope kindled in a world where, at last, power stands for justice. At the same time, the ACLU sues Donald Rumsfeld for torturing terrorists; charges which they cannot support – their only purpose, to voice their discontent with freedom's victory.
Let’s cheer for just a few minutes. Let’s cheer the field goals of freedom kicked as the clock ran down. The landslide victory of George W. Bush in November 2004, the ouster of Putin’s puppet in the Ukraine, the 8,000,000 votes cast “under fire” in Iraq, the Death of the terror monster Yasser Arafat, the election’s held in Gaza and the West Bank, the Courage of the Lebanese facing down Syria, the capture of Saddam’s little brother ( his name not worth remembering), the rebounding American economy, the return of the space shuttle, the flu epidemic that wasn’t, George W’s triumphant tour of Europe, Condoleeza Rice, the death penalty for children declared unconstitutional, Osama and Al Zarkawi on the run, the end of the drought in the west, global warming cooling, 200,000 Iraqi troops in training, North Korea returning to six party talks, Iran and France at each other’s throat. All right now, let’s head out onto the field. Hey,look at the other bleachers; they're empty. No, no wait, there’s Robert Byrd flipping us off from the fifty yard line. Isn’t he cute!
Lysis, I have to say that the ending of your post was one of the most humurous of all. France and Iran at each other's throats, "the capture of Saddam’s little brother ( his name not worth remembering)" - LOL.
ReplyDeleteBut I would take issue with a little more than the fact that Layton's football team hasn't won a game in 17 years... While I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, it does bother me that it is refused flatly to "children" under the age of 18. I knew this was generally the case already, I've seen and read about it far too often to the point that I jeered at it when I was 17. But I read a case in the article that informed me of their ruling in which a 17 year old hog tied a girl, after kidnapping her, and threw her into a river...
Hmm... An odd thing to consider. The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on the retarding notion that the youth aren't responsible, and can't be held responsible, until they turn 18. Which means that if I were to have shot dead someone at 11:50PM on the night before the anniversary of my birth, I would live on without the full penalty of law. Irony. A society that condemns murder to the point of insanity, and let's children get away with it. But honestly, that 17 year old "boy" new what he was doing. Show me a 17 year old that doesn't realize that tying up and throwing someone into a river is wrong.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, but denying punishment to a "child" because his age means that he's incompetent is rediculuous. Age has nothing to do with knowledge and/or moral principal. Just look at the number of adults that don't believe that murder is wrong, or don't care. I forget how many died in Columbine, or what the age of the shooters was, but I wonder if this ruling would have passed if they had not taken their own lives. Surely the families of the victims would have cried for their blood... And why should some 17 year old who put all of the thought and planning into that be denied his prize?
And almost by divine intervention of irony...:
ReplyDelete"CUMBERLAND CITY, Tennessee (AP) -- A school bus driver was shot to death as she drove her route Wednesday morning and a male student was taken into custody, authorities said. No students were hurt.
Law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that the bus driver died.
At the time of the shooting, the bus was carrying up to 20 students, ranging from kindergarten to 12th grade, said Bill Austin, a supervisor for Stewart County schools.
The student taken into custody was identified only as a teenager."
An article I just found on CNN.
I recently came across this justification for the abolishment of the death penalty for juveniles in washingtonpost.com
ReplyDeleteIn October, four U.S. Supreme Court justices said they opposed executing defendants who committed capital crimes at age 16 or 17, calling such executions "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."
I suppose this returns to some degree to our oft had debates over absolute and relative truth. The men elected to define just actions and consequences changing those same parameters as public opinion changes? If it is inconsistent with current decency to kill a guilty child... why is it different with adults? Why are differentiations made based on age as the lone parameter? As to whether it's right or wrong I don't know, but certainly if they are proven "guilty beyond the shadow of doubt" then they should be punished for such.
However, certainly such arguments such as adult influence (refer to Malvo and Muhammed) should be taken in consideration in the trial but from there on the individual should stand for his actions and be accountable to the degree he is judged by a jury of his peers.
Just a thought from one who has long followed this blog but very seldom posted due to his lack of eloquance.
There are two things that I wanted to comment on here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, and perhaps most importantly, I graduated from Lysis' school, and we had a very good team in '94, lost to Skyline in the State final if I remember correctly.
Secondly, I would like to just add a couple thoughts on minors and the death penalty. Though I am a staunch proponent of the death penalty, and have argued its merits or lack thereof with Lysis on many occasions, I find that I have no problem whatsoever with the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday.
Let me address a few of the points made by shadow. First, one thing we need to remember is that these "kids" are not getting off. They will still spend their lives in jail. It isn't as if they are being pardoned, or that their convictions are being overturned. They will still spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Second, you make a great point about relative culpability vs. age. It is one that I have been mulling over in my mind. I think that there are in all liklihood minors who have thought through their actions and have made decisions the same as if they were thirty. These would deserve the death penalty. However, I think there is something inherently different with age.
For instance. Take an individual who has had a horrible upbringing. Imagine a person who has been abused, be it physical, emotional, sexual, whatever. I firmly believe that these things can cause severe damage to ones cognitive ability. They can be overcome, but lets look at it as a timeline.
At some point in time, everyone, no matter what happened in their youth, must take ownership of their own decisions and actions. One cannot continue to point the finger at things that have been done to them. However, I have come to think that there are several factors that, intuitively, seem to make a difference in that question. How long has it been since the damage? How old was the person when they had problems? And how old are they now?
Though I still stand firmly behind the Death penalty, and believe it to be right and just, if there is an area to take a more cautious stance, I believe that minors is a good line to draw. There are, in my mind, too many questions.
Blowhard here . . .
ReplyDeleteAs long as we are speaking analogy(all analogies are false to some degree) today -- here are a few words of advice courtesy of Kenny Rogers -- another well know Greek.
"You got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run . . .
Ya never count your money
When you're seated at the table
There'll be time enough for counting
When the dealing's done."
Or Dick Motta (has to be another Greek name)
"It's not over 'till the fat lady sings."
To Ares, Apollo, Dannyboy and all other “Lancers” I might have offended: You are right. There have been many winning teams at LHS since 88. I was only speaking of “my” memories. I especially enjoyed that season. My hero was in the band.
ReplyDeleteApollo – You are right, Aeneas did escape Troy, but his escape did little for Hector, Paris, or the Women of Troy. But, our Lancer friends are right again; there were other seasons. And so it will be in the struggle for freedom. I concur with Silver Lining: the future promises many great players and teams yet to come.
Now, as to the death penalty: “a_quiet_listener” has hit this nail right on the head. Executing those who have been rendered powerless by their captivity is wrong and it always has been. Like slavery in the past and abortion in the future, reason will bring humans into line with Justice, with Natural Law. It is a long hard struggle – one best accomplished by the light of freedom but in no instance should such atrocities be condoned by those who see the evil. I calls for the celebration of the Supreme Court's decision because it moves us grudgingly closer to the day when our hands will be free from the stain of bloody vengeance.
Dannyboy is right: murders should be punished but there is surely a better way for a “Majestic State” to do this than by fowling our collective hands with helpless blood. Remember the 13 Illinois death row inmates set free by DNA evidence and consider the danger of taking any irreversible step.
To Blowhard – I wish Byrd and Kennedy would take your (Kenny’s) advice and “fold ‘em!
While I'd just like to reitterate that I believe the death penalty is wrong, I also want to point out that I was attacking unequal treatment under law.
ReplyDeleteI will grant that most, or many, children might not understand what they were doing, but I have spoken with 14 year olds that blow me away with their ability to understand the bigger pictures, and then have listened to my friends complain of 30 year old (or more) coworkers play the same games a kid would.
I mainly take issue with judgement on age because, even though I'm a legal adult and will have been for a year this coming weekend, it still holds me back. Not nearly as much, but there are still those that will judge you based off of it. I think that partitioning someone off from society based off of their age is inherently flawed. And if we are to argue someone's responsibility of their actions based off of their cognitive abilities, there are many "adults" that could hardly fit the bill...
I never meant to impart a belief that 16 or 17 year olds weren't penalized for their crimes. But as I believe I stated, they aren't given the full penalties of law, and based only on their age. I wonder if that happens to women as well. I know that there are some on death row... But hmm... Anyways, the point is that the Supreme Court isn't outlawing death penalty, they are banning it's being awarded to those under age off of weak evidence: Cruel and Unusual punishment. Executing someone that was 17 and kidnapped, bound, and drowned someone is hardly cruel and unusual. If we are going to have standards at all, they need to apply to everyone accross the board. In my opinion next to finally ridding the world completely of racism, the next big bias is overcoming that of bias on age...
I have to say A_shadow, you have fallen into one of the great constitutional law traps. Though the constitution talks about equal protection, it does not mean that laws cannot be created that treat individuals differently. In fact, age is one of the easiest qualifiers to base different treatment under the law. A few examples.
ReplyDeleteVoting.
Gun ownership.
Ability to sign a contract.
Marriage.
Drinking.
Smoking.
Driving.
Sex.
It seems to me that it is very normal and common sense to treat minors different from adults. You could argue about what age should be considered adult, that might be an interesting debate, but you couldn't say that there should be no difference under the law.
Would you argue that a twelve year old should be able to be drafted (if we had the draft.) Or even be able to join the military.
There is an inherent difference between adults and minors.
In essence, it's not truely about the age. In that sense people feel that it is equal because no one is exempt from it. What I am arguing about is the randomly drawn line of 18 that is drawn throughout, mainly because of the draft. What a stupid reason to limit based off of other things. Now lawmakers tend to return with scientific studies showing "diminished" or developing brain capacities in children under that age (but many times much older). The point is that I know plenty of "adults" that shouldn't have the right to own a gun, or drink, or anything based off of the same "scientific" critereons. That I know 14 year olds that are much more responsible than their parents. I'm arguing about the unjustified "age" being the determining factor of your mental capacity when there are 11 year olds working in research laboratories and/or making more money than their parents could dream up. Age is an arbitrary number, like height, that has no REAL hard and fast rule. If you want to determine if their "smart" enough to wield a gun, vote or responsible enough to drink, then find some other variable to judge on than their age. Because in my eyes it's like saying you have to be 5'11" or taller to drink, vote, etc. Because there are some shorter that could handle it, and taller ones that couldn't. It's arbitrary and unjustly so. That's what I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteIt is not arbitrary. Your examples are the exceptions, and I dare you to show how they aren't. Age is a good indicator of Knowledge, maturity, physical capability, and many other things.
ReplyDeleteI could go through with many examples, but I will give just one. Divorce rates for people who get married in their teens vs others.
Give me a quantitative or qualitative reason of why there is a reason for 18 year olds to vote and not 16 year olds. Tell me why is it that they can't vote, without using the draft age. It is arbitrary. There is no real scientific reason that the age should be 18. In fact, more studies show that we are continuing our developement into our early twenties, if you want to define adult as someone who is fully developed.
ReplyDeleteTell me how a 16 year old can have the responsibility of driving a half ton vehicle, but can't be penalized for that with anything more than an increase in car insurance and maybe his license revoked. We give our "children" access to the #1 cause of death, but we won't let them vote or even have equivilent rights?
I fail to see how the divorce rate in teens has much to do with their rates. Funny thing is that the last time I saw a number, half of ALL marriages ended in divorce. Divorce differs by a mere 20% in most cases when compared to religion, race, and economic condition. In fact: "Shared beliefs and values may bode well for a long, healthy marriage. But if your partner lights up, you had better watch out for the fire.
New research found a 53% increased risk of divorce for smokers, regardless of gender, age, race, education or income. William J. Doherty,
the study's co-author, emphasizes that smoking does not actually cause divorce. What it does mean, he speculates, is that "those who smoke
have characteristics and life experiences that make them more divorce-prone than nonsmokers." The new findings reinforce 1997's
long-term study that flatly reports smoking is a predictor for divorce."
As found on: http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rsmokers.html
So I don't see why, from that information, there shouldn't be a restriction on smokers and their rights. It's obviously so cut and dry.
You are right to an extent. An arbitrary line does have to be drawn somewhere. My question is why you have such a problem with this one.
ReplyDeleteDoes 16 mean you will be a good driver, no, but, in this state, as a society we have decided to let people drive at that age.
Drinking is 21, smoking 19, buying a rifle 18, buying a handgun 21, signing a contract 18.
While these lines are, to a certain extent, arbitrary, they are based on the fact that, as a rule, age coincides with maturity (physical and emotional) and is a good device to decide responsibility level.
Once again you are missing and misconstruing criminal law and procedure. The recent ruling by the supreme court did not say that a minor could not be CHARGED as an adult, they merely said you cannot execute them. A sixteen year old who, as you say, gets behind the wheel of a half-ton vehicle and causes a death, can be charged and punished EXACTLY the same as an adult. A 12 year old could get life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In law lines have to be drawn, and there is not always a cut and dry place to draw them. It is reasonable to say that (as a rule) someone in their twenties is more able to handle the responsibilities associated with reaching your legal majority then a teenager. But should that line be 21, 20, 19, 18, etc. You cannot do a definitive scientific study to prove such a thing.
Arbitrary means there is no reason for what is done. There are reasons, they just don't point to specifically 18, but to a wider range. The problem is when you write laws you cannot say, "when an individual is responsible enough to handle the following. . ." You HAVE to draw a definitive line.
P.S. the age for draft was not always 18.
P.P.S. Not all ideas of minor/adult are drawn at 18.
conclusion: your idea that this arbitrary line is ONLY because of the draft is inherently flawed.
Challenge: You explain how you think the law SHOULD handle the transition from minority to full adult status.
You keep retorting with how it is or how you see it is necessary that it is this way. I brought up the draft because this one law, or however you would classify it, has shaped voting age and in instances the age for which you can drink. So basically it isn't just an arbitrary line, it's a moveable and arbitrary line. I brought it up as an example as a flaw in the system. 16 year olds are legal to drive, but the main reason for the voting age being 18 is that they are old enough to be sent to war, so they should be old enough to have a voice in who's sending them. Thus the drinking age is lowered for those enlisted based off of...? I couldn't honestly give you a rational explanation for that. If you aren't responsible enough to drink until you're 21, does enlisting make you more so? An odd thing for sure. But you think this arguments inherently flawed. I would love to counter those flaws but you didn't give any.
ReplyDeleteI could see age being used as a criterion for seperation, that's not what I'm bringing up at the heart of the discussion. What I'm bringing up is the irrationality of saying that all of a certain group are irresponsible, whether it be based on age, race or height, it is injust and thus should have no place in America.
I won't bother to argue that a 12 year old isn't mature enough to know that a loaded gun isn't a toy, AS A RULE, as you put it. But that should hardly apply to a 16 year old. I'm simply stating that there should be a definable line in the sand. Not a piece of rope that can be easily moved at convenience that someone just threw out there in the first place.
There is no discernable evidence that says that I was different on the eve of my 17th birthday than on the morning there-after. Your birthday is an anniversary of the total years of life you have had on this planet, it in no way shape or form denotes your intelligence, responsibility or maturity.
Arrogance of Power
ReplyDeleteToday, I Weep for my Country...
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.
Anonymous, thak you for the Byrd speech. To me it speaks far moe of his politics than of his elequence, far more of his agenda than of his love truth.
ReplyDeleteI love this site attheagora.blogspot.com. Lot of great information. I am Tech guy. I have been a Desktop Technician since 1997 but have tons of other interests. In my spare time... Oh, wait I don't have any of that (just kidding). Anyways, I have been aware of this website for quite some time and decided to join the community and contribute as well as learn a lot from others. I am excited to get started on the forum and am looking forward to a great journey together. Lots of potential friends and I look forward to meeting many online.
ReplyDeleteOur handsome kicker came out onto the field, barefoot,
ReplyDeletehis long blond hair bushing out of his helmet.