You say my statement is sexist. You also say it MAY be sexist. I say make up your mind and end the equivocation. "I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak. And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion. As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you? Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none. I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well. But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote.
You say my statement is sexist. You also say it MAY be sexist. I say make up your mind and end the equivocation. "I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak. Why don't you want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year? If it is because you hate people of Italian descent, then that is ethnic bigotry on your part. You continue to dodge the issue that you need to provide full explanation of WHY you don't approve of something as imperative to fully understand the reference point of your comments. Someone doesn't want Steinbrenner to sign Giambi for another automatically begs the question: WHY??? Your comments about women in the draft were in the context of a discussion on women's rights and the ERA, and thus beg the question: WHY DON'T YOU WANT WOMEN TO BE DRAFTED IN WARTIME? And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion. You are entitled to call me a sexist, I don't care. However, calling me a sexist in defense of your own sexist position is a "Hannityism." My position is irrelevant to your position, and irrelevant to my being able to suggest that you are sexist. Equally true, if I am in fact practicing hypocrisy, my hypocrisy is irrelevant to your status as a sexist. Typical Hannity approach, defend through attack. People using this technique are arguing incorrectly and applying logical fallacies and Hannity technology----even if these techniques are effective in swaying a stupid audience who doesn't understand and recognize the tricks that are being used. The Hannity approach is an appeal to emotion, and hope that the party on the other side will elevate to the level of Hannity, where Hannity can simply yell louder and be more abusive. I pointed this out in the last thread, yet you continue. You must think this technique works. It doesn't, it just points our your methodology. As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you? If you do some research you will see that we have not had a active draft in nearly 3 decades in this country, and the draft preceeded the women's movment and the women's liberation movement. Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none. You fail to understand the argument I am making. I am not saying that women necessarily need the ERA today, I am saying that passing the ERA provided them legal recorse they don't have. In the event of change in social norms, and a return to women's rights being restricted, women would not have an ERA to fall back on for support. Whether or not it is popular is not the point of law, but the issue is "should" it be law even if it is not popular. Taxation is also not popular, but it is a necessary component of our society. So to argue that something is not needed because it is not popular is false reasoning. After 911, it would have been pretty easy for the Federal Government to immediately round up a bunch of Arabs and kill them, and that would have been a popular decision given the outrage, but still not a legal, morally correct, or evolved decision. I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well. Losing debates is boring. Hannity is an example of right wing tactics in action. But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote. The reason for the logjam in the ERA has to do with sexism of men who don't want to grant women equal rights and responsibilities. There is no valid reason women shouldn't be subject to the draft if they are of equal status as men.
Women should be drafted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Women should be drafted By Cathy Young The Boston Globe February 17, 2003 p. A12 THE PROSPECT of war with Iraq has sparked a discussion of the possibility of bringing back military conscription. So far, such a move seems unlikely; the only calls for a reinstatement of the draft have come from war opponents such as Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, who argues that war requires ''shared sacrifice'' (and believes that if a draft were in place, our government would be more reluctant to go to war). But the debate about the draft raises a long-overdue question: What about women? Several young people in Massachusetts have recently confronted this issue head-on. In January, 18-year-old Samuel Schwartz of Ipswich, aided by his father, civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston challenging all-male Selective Service registration as unconstitutional. He has been joined by his 17-year-old sister and two male friends. All-male draft registration is an issue that has received little attention -- surprising since it is the only instance in which federal law explicitly treats men and women differently. In 1981, the year after mandatory selective service registration for males was reinstated, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the purpose of the draft was to send soldiers into combat, from which women were barred. In 2003, the legal and cultural landscape is very different. There are far more women in military ranks, doing a far wider variety of jobs -- including some combat-related ones. In the 1990 Gulf War, women were closer to the front lines than ever before, and were among the casualties of war. Today, women can pilot combat aircraft, serve on combat ships, and command battalions in combat areas. They are still barred, however, from direct engagement with enemy forces on the ground. Curiously, the debate about women in combat has been framed primarily as a debate about women's rights. Feminists who champion women in the military generally talk about giving women the choice to serve in combat, and talk about career opportunities that servicewomen are denied because of the combat exclusion. Men -- those who volunteer for service under the present system, and possibly all military-age men if a draft is reinstated -- can be required to fight and risk their lives. A young man who does not register for Selective Service theoretically risks prosecution, and forgoes a chance for a student loan. This paradox has led men's advocates such as author Warren Farrell to charge that feminism seems to give women options without obligations. Male-only draft registration, he argues, is a symbol of the longstanding attitude that men's lives are more ''disposable'' and that women must be protected from harm. Indeed, some of the opposition to drafting women and putting them on the front lines is explicitly rooted in this chivalrous mentality. In the book ''The Kinder, Gentler Military,'' Stephanie Gutmann warns against trying to override the ''natural law'' that makes men want to protect women and makes societies reluctant to send women to die on the battlefield. Meanwhile, contemporary feminist dogma, fixated on male violence against women, largely avoids confronting the fact that especially in the West, patriarchy has involved not only women's oppression but women's protection. Those feminists who have honestly confronted this issue have a point when they argue that chivalry is infantilizing. It's no accident that the claim for special protection lumps women with children. In a culture that has rejected the belief that ''natural law'' relegates women to subordination in marriage and exclusion from public life, public policy rooted in the notion that women's lives are more precious than men's is unconscionable. But the combat exclusion is also rooted in practical considerations. Some leading proponents of women's full integration into the armed services, such as retired Air Force Major General Jeanne Holm, remain skeptical about putting women into physical combat -- primarily because it requires levels of physical prowess most women don't have. Even the weight of the equipment soldiers in ground combat must carry poses a problem for women. Most military service, however, does not involve direct engagement with the enemy. In Israel, women are currently drafted but serve in noncombat positions. It should be up to the military, based on the needs of national defense, to decide in what capacity women can be best employed. In the meantime, the courts should reject male-only draft registration as incompatible with equal citizenship. Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe. Edited by: LadyKate63 at: 4/29/03 9:04:55 am
Honestly? There you go again....putting words in people's mouth and being (gasp!) SARCASTIC! Now, it would be an extreme position - if I had indeed said such a thing. You know perfectly well that I have NEVER said we should "murder everyone who breaks the law." Ridiculous. Being in favor of capital punishment does not mean I advocate gunning down shoplifters. No, the question first of all, is how can we be sure that when someone is released after committing a horrific crime that they won't do it again? Obviously released felons who have been deemed "rehabilitated" go on to commit further murders, rapes, etc. If the system keeps releasing such people, then the system is flawed. The end result is the same, whether these people be sick or evil. A kidnapped, raped, tortured, and finally murdered victim cares not that her assailant is Satan incarnate or suffering from a mental illness. Evil, sick, or whatever, society should not have to suffer the consequences of these people being released. What is the difference, then, of a murderer being killed in the act by police or being put to death via capital punishment? You agree police have the right to protect society by shooting the murderer in public TO SAVE FURTHER INNOCENT LIVES, yet if the perpetrator is not killed by the police, you are against that same perpetrator undergoing capital punishment. Why do we eliminate dangerous products from harming us, but allow dangerous human beings to continue to harm us? A good, even great leader can be emotional yet cooly precision-like when it counts, just as good traders can be very emotional but are able to subdue their emotions when they perform their work. Patton wasn't emotional? Martin Luther King? You could compile a list of unemotional great leaders as well, but the point is not whether someone is emotional or not, but whether he/she is able to get results. Your answer is very black and white. It is very clear that to you, further loss of innocent life is an acceptable price to pay to allow felons the benefit of the doubt and hope they are rehabilitated.
"Likely inclusive"? "I do believe..." Well, Optional, you have a tremendous imagination. So fun to watch you put words in people's mouths when you've run out out of arguments. LOL! Seeing how your desperation is showing, I'll humor you: It is true that you can't be sure that I won't go postal in your favorite restaurant, just as we can't be sure you don't inject gerbils up your rectum prior to each Fed announcement. Having said that, what is "rational" about a system that allows murderers and rapists to commit the same crimes over and over on an innocent populace? Until you come up with the miraculous scientific cure that prevents felons from committing the same crimes again, you are demonstrably in favor of perpetuating the current system that allows the slaughter of further innocents. When the person in question can be released and again commit the same crime, the safety of society is indeed threatened. No, you obviously view humans as fodder. Precisely what I have been trying to get across. They were able to subdue their emotions. This is a sweeping statement. In a company there is always someone higher, in the military the same. There are brigadier generals, then major generals, then lieutenant generals, and then generals. Is the Major General, in command of thousands of men, a leader or a follower? He is both. We are all followers in some sense. This is the case in virtually all strata of society. To classify anyone with a superior as someone who lets their emotions rule their intellect is ridiculous. You would probably consider yourself a great leader, but you would have no followers. Except for a certain moderator. Cars do not intentionally kill people. Alcohol doesn't by itself kill other people. People intentionally do, and often with great sadistic glee, kill other people. Obviously you choose to perpetuate that. Many do not. You're right. Eliminating hardcore criminals in order to protect society would violate those criminals' personal freedoms and rights, such as repeating their crimes. How terrible. I might also suggest you do the same prior to your next rabid anti-Bush post. BTW, you're getting EMOTIONAL
Sex offender charged in Dru Sjodin's death Rodriguez pleads not guilty; faces possible death penalty Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Posted: 11:07 PM EDT (0307 GMT) FARGO, North Dakota (CNN) -- A federal grand jury has charged Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., with kidnapping University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, leading to her death, a federal official said Wednesday. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, said Charlotte Berg, an assistant to U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley. Sjodin's body was discovered last month in a ditch northwest of Crookston, Minnesota. According to the indictment, Rodriguez, 51, a convicted sex offender, "knowingly and unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and willfully transported Dru Katrina Sjodin in interstate commerce from the state of North Dakota to the state of Minnesota, and held her for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, and otherwise, resulting in the death of Dru Katrina Sjodin." The indictment said Rodriguez killed Sjodin "in an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner, in that it involved torture and serious physical abuse" and that the killing was carried out "after substantial planning." The 22-year-old disappeared November 22 after leaving her job at a Victoria's Secret store in a Grand Forks, North Dakota, mall. She was on the telephone with her boyfriend when the phone went dead. Rodriguez was charged December 1 with her kidnapping after authorities found a knife and blood matching Sjodin's DNA in his car. Rodriguez has pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping. Later, a knife sheath was found near Sjodin's car in the mall parking lot. The sheath was sold at a local store and only with a knife of the type found in Rodriguez's car. After her disappearance, a shoe belonging to Sjodin was found beneath a bridge along the bank of the Red Lake River. The bridge was on a highway heading into Crookston, Rodriguez's hometown, about 25 miles east of Grand Forks. Wrigley estimated that Rodriguez' trial would last three or four weeks, according to a report from The Associated Press. The trial was set for July 19. Northeast Central District Judge Lawrence Jahnke has issued a gag order barring attorneys on both sides from talking about the state case, the AP reported. Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said he has no preference on where the case is tried. Dru Sjodin disappeared November 22. "I really haven't sat down and thought about the whole process," he said Wednesday in an AP report. "We're just going to follow the process. They're going to handle the case, and we believe in the justice system." Federal charges had been expected because authorities believe Rodriguez crossed state lines while committing the crime. Rodriguez was released from prison last May, after serving a 23-year sentence for attempted kidnapping, assault and other convictions for attempted rape and aggravated rape. Investigators said they found traces of Sjodin's DNA in blood in Rodriguez's car, according to the AP. They also found a knife in the trunk that matched a sheath found near Sjodin's car.
Justice is served. ----------------------------------------------------------- Jury: Death for sex offender who killed student FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A federal court jury decided Friday that a convicted sex offender should die for killing college student Dru Sjodin. The jury reached its decision against Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. after more than a day and a half of deliberations. Rodriguez looked straight ahead and showed no emotion as the sentence was announced. Rodriguez's mother, Dolores, and sister, Ileanna Noyes, cried as the verdict was announced, as did a number of the jurors. Members of Sjodin's family looked somber and stared straight ahead. They shared hugs outside the courtroom. "I know it wasn't an easy decision for the jurors," Sjodin's mother, Linda Walker, said afterward, her voice shaking. "But Dru's voice was heard today." It is the first death penalty case in North Dakota in nearly a century. The state does not have the death penalty but it is allowed in federal cases. The case was pursued federally because the crime crossed state lines. The University of North Dakota student's body was found in a Minnesota ravine nearly five months after she disappeared. "We hope the need does not arise for another 100 years," U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley said. "The defendant's acts of the last three decades have brought us to this place at this time," he said, referring to Rodriguez's earlier convictions for assaults on women going back to 1975. The same federal jury convicted Rodriguez, 53, of Crookston, Minnesota, on August 30 on a charge of kidnapping resulting in Sjodin's death. Sjodin, 22, of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, disappeared from a Grand Forks shopping mall parking lot on November 22, 2003, and her body was found the following April in a ravine near Crookston. Authorities said she was beaten, raped and stabbed. Wrigley, in his statements to jurors, said the death penalty would be the "right thing, in the right case." He stood near her portrait and asked for justice. Rodriguez's attorney, Richard Ney, asked the jury for mercy after calling psychologists and Rodriguez's family to talk about his childhood of poverty, abuse and exposure to farm chemicals. Ney also said Rodriguez had been anxious about being released from prison after serving more than 20 years for assaults on three women in 1975 and 1980. Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said the family could have accepted a sentence of life in prison. "Whatever would have happened, we would have been equally satisfied," Sjodin said. "For Dru's sake, this needed to happen." http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/22/student.slain.ap/index.html
Well who carries out the sentence? The State? The Feds? When was the last time they executed anyone? I bet he dies an old man in prison.