[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule

[C. G. Estabrook]

Wait a minute, Randall: it was you who offered the quoted commentary as a
specification of the goals of the "conference," about which I asked. (I
won't insist on "rally," altho' it's arguable.) And now you say, "Aaron
never mentioned Forgiveness Weekend in this piece" -- so, presumably,
these are *not* the goals of the conference.  What, then, is the
conference for?

And surely you don't mean that people are not being asked to support
anything.  What I wanted to know was *what* they were being asked to
support.  Apparently the answer is (or maybe isn't) Aaron's commentary...

Can you dismiss the reference to the president as "inconsequential"? I
mentioned it merely to show that the information about felons'
disabilities was unreliable on its face. So I remain puzzled by the
question you ask: what restrictions on felons are under attack by CUCFPJ?

Or (as I asked at the outset of this correspondence), "What, specifically,
is the disenfranchisement of felons that this conference seeks to end?"  
I still don't know.

Regards, Carl

 
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Randall Cotton wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "danielle schumacher"
> <danielle at illinoisnorml.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule
> 
> 
> : Randall--
> :
> : My question was about the "overall goal of the event," not (as you rightly
> : say) "Bevel's undeniably objectionable support of the Larouche and Moon
> : cult."  I'd like to see spelled out what it is one is being asked to
> : support -- information apparently absent from the web-site and publicity
> : for the event.
> 
> I'm not under the impression that by attending, folks are being asked to
> support anything.
> 
> I could be wrong, I suppose, but it seems to me that the conference is
> educational and informative in nature, not a "rally", as you label it.
> 
> I agree that there does seem to be a lack of detailed information about the
> event, especially considering its extent. The best info available that I'm
> aware of (at that web address I posted) doesn't provide much beyond titles.
> That may be due at least in part to the organizers being a bit overwhelmed,
> I don't know.
> 
> Perhaps more information is available elsewhere. If not, I suspect more
> details will foster greater attendance.
> 
> : My "bias" against the event arises from my suspicion that it attacks the
> : wrong problem (and may even overstate it).  Do you think that there should
> : be no restrictions placed on felons?
> 
> Nope, but no one has put forth such a premise except you 8-). For instance,
> in Aaron's statement below, it seems to me that he is clearly only speaking
> in favor of relaxing some restrictions in the context of felonies due to
> "minor crimes such as possession of a small amount of marijuana, video and
> audio taping of traffic stops of police officers or giving the police a
> false name". Why do you leap from that to "no restrictions placed on
> felons"?
> 
> : That's a very different matter from
> : the the fact that many people become felons inappropriately, owing to the
> : present drug laws.
> :
> : Aaron lists a number of these restrictions.  I don't know that they all
> : exist.  (It is for example not true that an ex-felon is debarred form
> : being president, as he says: the only requirements for president are in
> : the constitution.).
> 
> Well, while that may be true about the President, it seems pretty
> inconsequential 8-)
> 
> : Nor do I think that all such restrictions are
> : necessarily inappropriate. Do you think that the "murderers, rapists, and
> : pedophiles," whom Aaron mentions, should not be prevented from being a
> : "public school teacher, principal, counselor, bus driver, coach or
> : janitor"?
> 
> Again, you're implying that Aaron has advocated this, but clearly he
> qualified the "public school teacher, principal, counselor, bus driver,
> coach or janitor" bit with "someone who smoked a little bit of pot", not
> "murderers, rapists, and pedophiles". This is quite unlike you, Carl, to
> make such a mischaracterization and I remain mystified.
> 
> : Aaron admits that there is no literal disfranchisement of felons in
> : Illinois (i.e., they can vote). But his ultimate demand is for "full
> : voting rights restored to all felons who have paid their debts to society
> : by serving their time" -- at best a misleading statement of the goals of
> : the rally, apparently.
> 
> What "rally"? Forgiveness Weekend? Aaron never mentioned Forgiveness
> Weekend in this piece (and again, I'm not sure why you characterize it
> as a "rally" as opposed to a conference or forum). He only mentioned
> CUCFPJ, so if anything, in that last paragraph he was listing issues
> that CUCFPJ is concerned with (of which voting rights for felons is
> just one example). Again, it seems to me that you're jumping to all
> sorts of conclusions without rational basis. Why is that? It's not
> like you.
> 
> : As I said, I'm afraid that the Forgiveness Weekend is at best working on
> : the edges of a serious social problem, perhaps inefficiently (the reforms
> : requested will do nothing to lessen the prison population)
> 
> Well, decriminalizing drug use altogether, for instance, would solve a
> lot of problems, granted. It would prevent charges and incarceration
> in the first place. So yes, that would accomplish more, but it's an
> immense and long-term undertaking by comparison. Who's to judge that
> suffering with no relief for years until the grand shangri-la is
> achieved all at once rather than focusing on smaller incremental
> relief in the short term (along the road to desired ends) is somehow a
> better approach? Certainly neither you nor I.
> 
> : and even
> : wrong-headedly (some restrictions on true felons may be appropriate).
> 
> Which "appropriate" restrictions on true felons do you believe are
> under attack by CUCFPJ? And on what rational basis do you conclude as
> such?
> 
> Thanks R
>