Hmm.






Irony.

The days of liberals like this talking sensibly about the reality of (violent, cold blooded) crime and the meting out of punishment are long gone. Oh wait, this is a movie. These people never really existed among liberals in any considerable number.



It's quite clear how the Right loses the other half of America, but the appropriate relationship between the rights of a convicted violent offender and the burden of society dealing with offenders in their communities is a stark no-go zone for a large swath of Americans. More so than abortion, I'd argue, and much more reasonable and urgent to the well being of society and its communities

100,000 deaths would be a success.

Hoax.

Doh!

GBear4Life said:

---

Dude, but that one crime is murder... there was no doubt in the case....if you are capable of committing murder, bye bye, it's a pity there isn't a hell for ya to go to

---

And I will never agree with that sentiment. So I guess there is nowhere else to go with this discussion.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Dude, but that one crime is murder... there was no doubt in the case....if you are capable of committing murder, bye bye, it's a pity there isn't a hell for ya to go to

---

And I will never agree with that sentiment. So I guess there is nowhere else to go with this discussion.

---

I thought that was pretty clear early on, but I think flushing out how our perspectives differ was the point.

Yeah, I think the general perspective that with time and good behavior convicted murderers' interests should be elevated above the general public by offering them opportunities to reengage with the public is cultural and moral value system that should be destroyed. And I find it more urgent that the verbal puffery of a president, for example.

You can take comfort in knowing the likelihood of you and I ever encountering this kind of violent scum in public is relatively slim. Millions of Americans do not have that luxury. That's the protecting of the little guy that I find much more relevant and urgent than the identity politics and identitarianism that claims to fight on behalf of those same people.

What's lacking is your ability to articulate what should the bar be for allowing convicted murderers or violent criminals the opportunity to overturn their conviction or sentences. It's easy to say raise/lower taxes, it's easier to say this is too much or too little, to draconian or too lenient. I

GBear4Life said:

---

What's lacking is your ability to articulate what should the bar be for allowing convicted murderers or violent criminals the opportunity to overturn their conviction or sentences

---

Pretty sure I already did that, but I guess you were too busy ranting to notice.

1. Lots of time already served.
2. Great behavior record while incarcerated
3. No evidence of being a serial offender.

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

Paul Bloom's "Against Empathy" is a good read.

GBear4Life said:

---

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

---

We're done here.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

---

We're done here.

---

Why did those questions bother you

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

---

We're done here.

---

Why did those questions bother you

---

I'm pretty sure you're not serious about understanding mine or anyone else's perspective, just finding more reasons to browbeat.

Honestly, I was pretty sure of this from the start but I decided to give a little rope and see what happened. No more.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

---

We're done here.

---

Why did those questions bother you

---

I'm pretty sure you're not serious about understanding mine or anyone else's perspective, just finding more reasons to browbeat.

Honestly, I was pretty sure of this from the start but I decided to give a little rope and see what happened. No more.

---

I understand your perspective, I just find it objectionable and inconsistent with a rational perspective on ethical priorities and public policy -- and inconsistent with your own values. In the abstract you find it sensible and centered and compassionate to offer the worst among us redemption if they "make good" for some period of time.

It will always be an abstract issue for you because you are otherwise isolated from the problem at the cost of millions of nameless faces that are also abstract to you. You never have to live out the consequences of your choices on these abstract issues (presumably -- or you could be the next Kate Steine). But you'd balk at living in any neighborhood littered with the people who fit that profile. Because that's real. It's not an abstract issue for you to be "enlightened". I'm flushing the full weight of all of that out with questions and you took your toys and went home.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Newsom probably should have dumped the decisions on to parole boards with directions to reduce the jail population size due to COVID.

---

I believe that's basically what he did for this guy. Despite what the clipped Twitter headline might have you believe, the guy is not free already. Newsom's action allows him to request parole when he otherwise would not have been able to.

---

smart move if that is the case. Most life sentence that include parol are not life sentences in CA . They avarage around 25 to 30 years depending on which time periods you look at.

Why Trump is the president:

Quote:

---

Rodney McNeal, 50, of San Bernardino County has served 22 years for fatally stabbing his pregnant wife, a crime he also denies.

The others include:

• Kristopher Blehm, 35, of Santa Barbara County, who has served nearly 12 years for helping murder his crime partner's romantic rival.

• Steven Bradley, 56, of Kern County, who has served 32 years for killing a gas station attendant during a robbery.

• Jason Bryant, 40, of Shasta County, who has served 20 years for armed robberies, including one in which a victim was fatally shot by an accomplice.

• Rosemary Dyer, 67, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 33 years for fatally shooting her husband.

• Samuel Eldredge, 61, of Humboldt County, who has served 25 years for fatally shooting his crime partner's housemate.

• Richard Flowers, 64, of Tulare County, who has served more than 25 years for killing a woman during a robbery.

• Robert Glass, 48, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 26 years for murder during a burglary.

• James Harris, 56, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 30 years for a drug-sales-related kidnapping and the killing of two victims.

• David Jassy, 45, Los Angeles County, who has served 11 years for killing a man during an altercation.

• Shyrl Lamar, 68, of Sacramento County, who participated in a robbery in which her crime partner fatally stabbed two victims.

• Ramon Rodriguez, 49, of Los Angeles County, who has served 22 years after he was paid to kill a victim.

---

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/newsom-commutes-prison-sentences-including-for-murder

Quote:

---

"I still get buzzed when I recall that a majority of Californians looked at what Gavin Newsom allowed while mayor of San Francisco rampant homelessness, transportation gridlock, failed public projects, a widening income gap, sidewalk needles, and human, er, waste and decided they wanted that for the whole state. They elected him governor in 2018 and now complain that California is going to hell," Swaim writes.

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/15/walters-president-gavin-newsom/

GBear4Life said:

---

Why Trump is the president:

Quote:

---

Rodney McNeal, 50, of San Bernardino County has served 22 years for fatally stabbing his pregnant wife, a crime he also denies.

The others include:

• Kristopher Blehm, 35, of Santa Barbara County, who has served nearly 12 years for helping murder his crime partner's romantic rival.

• Steven Bradley, 56, of Kern County, who has served 32 years for killing a gas station attendant during a robbery.

• Jason Bryant, 40, of Shasta County, who has served 20 years for armed robberies, including one in which a victim was fatally shot by an accomplice.

• Rosemary Dyer, 67, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 33 years for fatally shooting her husband.

• Samuel Eldredge, 61, of Humboldt County, who has served 25 years for fatally shooting his crime partner's housemate.

• Richard Flowers, 64, of Tulare County, who has served more than 25 years for killing a woman during a robbery.

• Robert Glass, 48, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 26 years for murder during a burglary.

• James Harris, 56, of Los Angeles County, who has served more than 30 years for a drug-sales-related kidnapping and the killing of two victims.

• David Jassy, 45, Los Angeles County, who has served 11 years for killing a man during an altercation.

• Shyrl Lamar, 68, of Sacramento County, who participated in a robbery in which her crime partner fatally stabbed two victims.

• Ramon Rodriguez, 49, of Los Angeles County, who has served 22 years after he was paid to kill a victim.

---

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/newsom-commutes-prison-sentences-including-for-murder

---

Oh please, spare me the holier than thou, high ground bs.

Trump's pardon/commutation list is vomit worthy for some of the people on there - and, using Arpaio as an example, accused and likely to be tried for, abuse of power, failure to investigate sex crimes, criminal negligence, abuse of suspects in custody, and on and on.

Trump has buddied up with Kim Jong-un (remember Otto Warmbier and Trump saying he trusts Kim). There is a murderer for you, but they are besties because, you know, power.

So here is my point, yes, you are correct to notice that the issue you have raised is a strong one within your political circles. The death penalty is also an issue of strong support among the same group. So is anti-abortion.

Without looking at each case above on its own merits, you cannot really reach a conclusion on whether or not each early release is worth while. Weaponizing this does no one any good.

I don't like the flavor it leaves in my mouth, but Im not frothing all over myself for people who have served over 20 years in prison getting out if they have no prior violent criminal history and a clean record while incarcerated.

This feels like someone who is angry, who needs something to be angry at.

You are not alone in being relatively ambivalent about this, and would immediately revert to a partisan point about another individual. You admit to intuitively finding it unacceptable, but you don't have animus to the general ideology behind it or the person enacting it.

This is the cultural divide. It's a cultural divide that hurts the Left more than the Right. The Left gets this wrong in ways that alienate non-partisan centrists. The apolitical household who has no party allegiance but just has a sensible take on justice and safety in their communities and matters that actually affect people will hold their nose and vote for the R or just stay at home. Yes, the Right has liabilities like this too that alienate many in the same centrist, apolitical group.

This board is outraged over political figures BS'ing their way through pressers, but are outright ambivalent about violent offenders given the opportunity to overturn their sentences and reenter society. It's telling.

GBear4Life said:

---

This board is outraged over political figures BS'ing their way through pressers, but are outright ambivalent about violent offenders given the opportunity to overturn their sentences and reenter society. It's telling.

---

What would Jesus do?

GBear4Life said:

---

You are not alone in being relatively ambivalent about this, and would immediately revert to a partisan point about another individual. You admit to intuitively finding it unacceptable, but you don't have animus to the general ideology behind it or the person enacting it.

This is the cultural divide. It's a cultural divide that hurts the Left more than the Right. The Left gets this wrong in ways that alienate non-partisan centrists. The apolitical household who has no party allegiance but just has a sensible take on justice and safety in their communities and matters that actually affect people will hold their nose and vote for the R or just stay at home. Yes, the Right has liabilities like this too that alienate many in the same centrist, apolitical group.

This board is outraged over political figures BS'ing their way through pressers, but are outright ambivalent about violent offenders given the opportunity to overturn their sentences and reenter society. It's telling.

---

"intuitively find it unacceptable" - I stated it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and that each case would have to stand on its own merits. I feel this way because most of my professional experience is in criminal defense and capital cases. Most of what you read about in regards to any large publicized case is inaccurate. Lots of information doesn't meet admissibility thresholds, blah blah, etc. . . . In other words, simply listing that someone committed a criminal act does not explain the act or the sentencing. There is always a lot more to it. I am sure if I went through the list in a deep dive, I would agree with some and disagree with others. Same as when Trump issues pardons and commutations, I agree with some and very much disagree with others. I unlike our political polar ice caps, can discern between each individually and do not through a rage blanket over all of them at once.

And yes it is a cultural divide and one that I am happy to be on the opposite end of. There is a fine line between vengeance and justice. I am comfortable with where I stand on the spectrum. I can both say someone is guilty and should be incarcerated for a period of time and I can find them innocent - Central Park Five, Earl Washington, Roy Criner, Clyde Charles.

We have 4% of the world population and between 20-25% of the entire world's incarcerated. When our crime rate has gone down, our incarceration rate has kept going up. We have even managed to find a way to turn incarceration into a new capitalist frontier.

If you still have anger pent up and need to point it at someone, you can always move to Texas. They will handle this issue very much in line with your beliefs.

Tedhead94 said:

---

"intuitively find it unacceptable" - I stated it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and that each case would have to stand on its own merits. I feel this way because most of my professional experience is in criminal defense and capital cases. Most of what you read about in regards to any large publicized case is inaccurate. Lots of information doesn't meet admissibility thresholds, blah blah, etc. . . . In other words, simply listing that someone committed a criminal act does not explain the act or the sentencing. There is always a lot more to it. I am sure if I went through the list in a deep dive, I would agree with some and disagree with others. Same as when Trump issues pardons and commutations, I agree with some and very much disagree with others. I unlike our political polar ice caps, can discern between each individually and do not through a rage blanket over all of them at once.

And yes it is a cultural divide and one that I am happy to be on the opposite end of. There is a fine line between vengeance and justice. I am comfortable with where I stand on the spectrum. I can both say someone is guilty and should be incarcerated for a period of time and I can find them innocent - Central Park Five, Earl Washington, Roy Criner, Clyde Charles.

We have 4% of the world population and between 20-25% of the entire world's incarcerated. When our crime rate has gone down, our incarceration rate has kept going up. We have even managed to find a way to turn incarceration into a new capitalist frontier.

If you still have anger pent up and need to point it at someone, you can always move to Texas. They will handle this issue very much in line with your beliefs.

---

You are making multiple points on multiple issues here, some of which I agree.

Why should an executive be able to commute a sentence when there is no new evidence or faulty legal processes? Why would any behavior on the defendants part overturn the sentencing of a jury/judge if there was no misconduct? Why would there need to be an examination of the case and circumstances? You are basically circumventing the criminal justice process. Let's not issue sentences then and just play it by ear? If we know being a good boy in prison can void a life sentence w/o parole, issuing sentences is pointless.

It's really not about anger -- I don't escape the issue by moving to Texas; my concern does not align with how it personally affects me -- it's about pointing out massive blinders on that adversely affect the people who don't have the luxuries the people who espouse these ideas have to effectively avoid the consequences of their decisions which are always abstract to them. The innocent poor people in ghetto communities want a strong police force and a semblance of law and order -- because they are the victims. But elitists know better. Same here.

On an episode of HBO's "The Outsiders" the defense lawyer responded to a past client saying "I'm a defense lawyer. It's my job to believe in just about anything." Made me chuckle.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Seriously?

What's a lot of time served?

How can someone be a serial offender if they're convicted and sent to prison for life on their first offense? That's how you eliminate "serial" offenders -- you put them away .

Would you be okay if all the ex-murderers could conditionally be released but only if they live on your block?

---

We're done here.

---

Why did those questions bother you

---

I'm pretty sure you're not serious about understanding mine or anyone else's perspective, just finding more reasons to browbeat.

---

You're being disingenuous here. That's not why you're done. You're frustrated I'm not letting your flawed, contradictory and incompatible reasons off the hook.

GBear4Life said:

---

On an episode of HBO's "The Outsiders" the defense lawyer responded to a past client saying "I'm a defense lawyer. It's my job to believe in just about anything." Made me chuckle.

---

The famous Bay Area criminal defense attorney, the late Charles Gary (who represented Huey Newton, other Panthers, and People's Temple) was once asked by a reporter, "Are you as good as Perry Mason?" "Better," responded Gary, "All Perry Mason's clients were innocent."

The Mother of All Criminal Defense Attorneys was Irving Kanarek. Facts from his Wikipedia page:

Irving Allan Kanarek (born May 12, 1920)[1] is a former criminal defense attorney best known for representing Charles Manson and "Onion Field" killer Jimmy Lee Smith.

Kanarek's first career was as an aerospace engineer working for North American Aviation (NAA), where he invented a corrosion inhibitor for Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid for the Army's Project Nike.[2][3]...
... According to Tate-LaBianca prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, Kanarek was legendary in Los Angeles courts for his dilatory, obstructionist tactics. In his book, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi claimed Kanarek, in a different case, had once objected to a witness identifying himself: Kanarek claimed that the witness's name was hearsay because the witness had first heard it from his mother.[6]...
... In the Tate-LaBianca trial, Kanarek objected nine times during opening statements, despite continuous censure by Judge Charles Older. During a later objection, he called witness Linda Kasabian insane, and by the third day of the trial, he had objected more than 200 times. According to author Jeff Guinn, jurors requested "NoDoz to ward off sleepiness" during his presentations, and he "infuriated his client so much" that Manson physically "attacked him in the courtroom."[7] During the course of the trial he was jailed twice by Judge Older for contempt of court. In his summation, Bugliosi dubbed Kanarek "the Toscanini of Tedium."[8]"

What really makes me chuckle when defense lawyers brand themselves as the righteous justice seekers.

The defense lawyer for the Duke lacrosse players was pretty transparent: "It's not difficult for me to presume my affluent clients are guilty".

Many defendants' only option should really be a public defender because the private defense lawyers can't bring themselves to go to trial and argue a not guilty verdict when they know their client is guilty of a serious crime. But that's never the case.

It's got to be morally challenging to be trial lawyer in some cases. Same with a prosecutor who is forced to prosecute a razor thin case from the DA who they think is probably not guilty.

A criminal defense attorney can morally and ethically represent a guilty defendant by making sure that the State follows all the laws in conducting the prosecution. Where a defense attorney steps over the line is when he/she starts floating defense theories that he knows for a fact to be untrue or preposterous.
I could not have been a criminal defense attorney unless I knew all my clients were innocent. That qualifier would have made for a short career.

bearister said:

---

A criminal defense attorney can morally and ethically represent a guilty defendant by making sure that the State follows all the laws in conducting the prosecution. Where a defense attorney steps over the line is when he/she starts floating defense theories that he knows for a fact to be untrue or preposterous.
I could not have been a criminal defense attorney unless I knew all my clients were innocent. That qualifier would have made for a short career.

---

100% agreed. But large #% of defense lawyers will follow a client to trial on a not guilty plea and float defense that be definition they do not believe. Public defenders are guilty of this too

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

A criminal defense attorney can morally and ethically represent a guilty defendant by making sure that the State follows all the laws in conducting the prosecution. Where a defense attorney steps over the line is when he/she starts floating defense theories that he knows for a fact to be untrue or preposterous.
I could not have been a criminal defense attorney unless I knew all my clients were innocent. That qualifier would have made for a short career.

---

100% agreed. But large #% of defense lawyers will follow a client to trial on a not guilty plea and float defense that be definition they do not believe. Public defenders are guilty of this too

---

This spins both ways and can be found in virtually any profession that is by its very nature adversarial.

Fwiw, I am not a lawyer, I do not like many lawyers, I have found lawyers to be somewhat a pain in the a$$ and too slick for my liking.

I am a paralegal and an investigator. I can say that every issue you outline for why you could not be a criminal defense attorney would be an issue that would come up on the other side with prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, corruption, etc.

And then there are the cases that are clearly politically motivated and being used by the DA to run for higher office.

Its all the same. Just cut from a different direction.

Tedhead94 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

A criminal defense attorney can morally and ethically represent a guilty defendant by making sure that the State follows all the laws in conducting the prosecution. Where a defense attorney steps over the line is when he/she starts floating defense theories that he knows for a fact to be untrue or preposterous.
I could not have been a criminal defense attorney unless I knew all my clients were innocent. That qualifier would have made for a short career.

---

100% agreed. But large #% of defense lawyers will follow a client to trial on a not guilty plea and float defense that be definition they do not believe. Public defenders are guilty of this too

---

This spins both ways and can be found in virtually any profession that is by its very nature adversarial.

Fwiw, I am not a lawyer, I do not like many lawyers, I have found lawyers to be somewhat a pain in the a$$ and too slick for my liking.

I am a paralegal and an investigator. I can say that every issue you outline for why you could not be a criminal defense attorney would be an issue that would come up on the other side with prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, corruption, etc.

And then there are the cases that are clearly politically motivated and being used by the DA to run for higher office.

Its all the same. Just cut from a different direction.

---

There's motive to act malevolently in most professions, yes. But the prosecutor and defense team are on different planes, IMO. I'd never deny that aspect on the prosecutor side, no question. But I think it's foolish to equate the two.

Yes, there are unethical prosecutors that once they are convinced someone is guilty, they put the blinders on with regard to exonerating evidence (and real bad ones might bury it). Although I am sure they exist, I think there are very few prosecutors that knowingly set out to convict an innocent person.

By virtue of the state having much higher burdens of proof, along with the costs of doing business, naturally inclines the state to be have "purer" motives than the average defense lawyer, whose motives always start at compensation. They don't always end there, but they almost always start there.

I know many friends who think the state just loves to charge innocent people that they'd rather be on the defense side. These are very ethical people. They are in denial about how soul-crushing it would be to represent the world's scum day after day after day...the here-and-there righteous cases of setting an innocent and good person free form a trumped up charge won't alleviate the demoralizing day to day of supporting criminals

bearister said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

On an episode of HBO's "The Outsiders" the defense lawyer responded to a past client saying "I'm a defense lawyer. It's my job to believe in just about anything." Made me chuckle.

---

The famous Bay Area criminal defense attorney, the late Charles Gary (who represented Huey Newton, other Panthers, and People's Temple) was once asked by a reporter, "Are you as good as Perry Mason?" "Better," responded Gary, "All Perry Mason's clients were innocent."

The Mother of All Criminal Defense Attorneys was Irving Kanarek. Facts from his Wikipedia page:

Irving Allan Kanarek (born May 12, 1920)[1] is a former criminal defense attorney best known for representing Charles Manson and "Onion Field" killer Jimmy Lee Smith.

Kanarek's first career was as an aerospace engineer working for North American Aviation (NAA), where he invented a corrosion inhibitor for Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid for the Army's Project Nike.[2][3]...
... According to Tate-LaBianca prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, Kanarek was legendary in Los Angeles courts for his dilatory, obstructionist tactics. In his book, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi claimed Kanarek, in a different case, had once objected to a witness identifying himself: Kanarek claimed that the witness's name was hearsay because the witness had first heard it from his mother.[6]...
... In the Tate-LaBianca trial, Kanarek objected nine times during opening statements, despite continuous censure by Judge Charles Older. During a later objection, he called witness Linda Kasabian insane, and by the third day of the trial, he had objected more than 200 times. According to author Jeff Guinn, jurors requested "NoDoz to ward off sleepiness" during his presentations, and he "infuriated his client so much" that Manson physically "attacked him in the courtroom."[7] During the course of the trial he was jailed twice by Judge Older for contempt of court. In his summation, Bugliosi dubbed Kanarek "the Toscanini of Tedium."[8]"

---

Sounds like the Robert Duvall character in A Civil Action was based on this guy. I highly recommend this movie.

Gavin Newscum exposed by a comedian

GBear4Life said:

---

Gavin Newscum exposed by a comedian

---

Perhaps if you had ever been faced with fathering a child out of wedlock and deciding what to do, you would understand that in fact, it does take courage to raise a child. Even if that child is born in wedlock, how many have the courage to put the child's needs and his spouse's needs over his own needs?

If you ever do anything of note with your life, perhaps you will learn that lesson one day.

There are some things the government can affect, but legislating who reproduces isn't one of them, nor is whether those two people stay together and meet their parental responsibilities.

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

Perhaps if you had ever been faced with fathering a child out of wedlock and deciding what to do, you would understand that in fact, it does take courage to raise a child. Even if that child is born in wedlock, how many have the courage to put the child's needs and his spouse's needs over his own needs?

If you ever do anything of note with your life, perhaps you will learn that lesson one day.

There are some things the government can affect, but legislating who reproduces isn't one of them, nor is whether those two people stay together and meet their parental responsibilities.

---

This is nonsense, and some perverted hierarchy of virtue and duty. Not sure you even watched the video or have read this thread.

Corolla wasn't asserting governments should force individuals into marriage or not having children out of wedlock. He's observing--and acknowledging--that these are values that are lacking in certain communities more than others. And that there is a strong correlation between outcomes and the adoption of such value systems (two-parent households and education). Also observed is a political ideology's unwillingness to acknowledge these variables, and that we are not helping the communities in question by ignoring these variables, and that we should promote them, incentivize them socially, culturally (even politically).

Your most egregious and alarming assertion is the insistence that it is somehow noble or courageous to follow through on one's duty after making a conscious choice knowing it can lead to an outcome that creates such duties. May as well say it's easy to apply for a job, but it's courageous to show up to work for that job everyday.

What's more courageous (though I wouldn't use that word here) is setting a goal of parenthood and building a foundation that fosters that goal: gainful employment, stability, a committed life-long partner/spouse. Pinning roses on the backs of men and women who make irresponsible choices and are ill-equipped and/or fail to carry out the duties of their choices is the cultural problem.

Does anyone remember this controversy with the Puddin' Man?

Pound Cake speech - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Cake_speech
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Cake_speech

Cosby's theory about Muslims keeping order in the community had truth to it but then it went to the Dark Side:


Your Black Muslim Bakery - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Black_Muslim_Bakery
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Black_Muslim_Bakery



*It brings to mind how the IRA used to control crime in Belfast....but then they did all that other bad stuff.

I remember the Pound Cake bit, but not the Muslim Bakery. Interesting story.