Politics, Economics, and Religion

Comment

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 5, 2012 at 8:55pm

A cello performance with a very good impersonation of visceral experiences of today's politics, economy and religion, all seeming to be reaching a frenetic crescendo of chaos at the same time in history, with a fear that it will all melt down to nothing, even as we hold a faint hope that order, good sense and compassion emerges.
Ruth, I like you contribution on these issues. 

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 5, 2012 at 3:17pm

While a cello performance seems irrelevant to Politics, Economics & Religion, this piece by Smells Like Teen Spirit captures the feel of that nexus today, with its heavy balance of frenetic/distorted/intense to serene/calm/sane. This is my nervous system submerged in the swirling current of economics/politics/religion/now.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 4, 2012 at 4:05pm

Why That Crappy Presidential Debate Won't Change Anyone's Mind

Sorry, I forgot to include my source.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 4, 2012 at 4:04pm

That snap poll that said 67% thought Romney won the presidential debate had me worried. But the uncommitted voters in the audience turned out to be "nearly all white, Southern and over 50." Not representative at all of US citizenry. It sounds like the Republicans managed to hoodwink us again, stuffing the peanut gallery, to give the impression their guy would win and discourage Dems.

Comment by Greg LeGore on October 4, 2012 at 9:57am

One of the more awful rulings to emerge from any court - they should be ashamed and of course recalled.

Comment by Chris Breman on October 4, 2012 at 2:21am

This is really disgusting - if the justice system won't protect the weak there's nothing left. You might as well overturn your Supreme Court.

Comment by Tony Carroll on October 3, 2012 at 8:17pm

Joan you're right. This isn't a right/left issue. This is a fairness issue. Small excert from the article;

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:

WTF!! Pardon me, but mental capacity of a 3 y.o. with CP, and further in the article, find out she is confined to a wheelchair! Gimme an effing break.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 3, 2012 at 8:07pm

Furthermore, This is so terribly outrageously ignorant of not one, but four judges who overturned the conviction of a rapist! Absurd! I wonder, if any one of those judges had a daughter with cerebral palsy and mental capacity of three years, would their sense of justice have been different? 
I don't think this is a right or left issue! Justice, fairness, accountability weigh heavy on the minds and hearts of the liberals I know. So, we don't think the state should put citizens to death, we do think the state should hold people accountable and responsible for harming others and indeed, the state should provide protections for those who are unable to protect themselves.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 3, 2012 at 7:49pm

Tony, this is terrible news! If courts don't know the word "NO" then why should a rapist? Besides, many counselors advise women to do what they believe will be safest for them, and if not resisting means less trauma, then that is what a woman should do. It is better to be raped and alive than raped and dead. Just common sense. 
If the judge were walking down a street and some thug held him up for his watch, rings, and wallet, should he resist? Or should he acquiesce and deal with remembering the face and features of the thug? 

Comment by Tony Carroll on October 3, 2012 at 6:02pm

 Think Progress Comments for TPR.

Court Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• …
• 61
• Next ›
• Page